Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

No worries, something is coming very soon. I woke up this morning at 4am with a fully formed idea and had to get up to write it down. I'm still working on it, but have to leave now and will be back this evening. Then I'll have to read it again and most likely rewrite it too. Some parts may be a bit too "in yer face" German, even for you. 555

 

Man, I have to wait all day?  No problem.    Though I may retire early today as I have to get up very early tomorrow morning - like about 1~2 AM.

Bring it on.  German, Italian, double barrelled shot gun, 16mm caliber machine gun, RPGs, Hellfire missiles . . . ah ain't scared a nuttin'.  Got nukes?  Bring 'em.

 

Hopefully you've got it through your head by now that you can't hurt me.  I don't tuck my tail between my legs and run.  I am not my ideas so I take none of this personally.  As Frogs said:

  

On 2/5/2024 at 6:10 PM, save the frogs said:

I thought that guy was unbreakable.

 

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

When you read sth that you also experience in real life, then its more powerful. 

But book learning is not useless. 

 

sth?  Sorry, that renders your first statement unintelligible for me.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with your second statement, though.  And that's my beef with Sunmaster's idea.  Not my beef with Sunmaster the dude.  But with his idea.  All experience, on whatever level, has importance and validity.  I'm not arguing that an adventure in consciousness may be more powerful in it's brilliance and clarity in conveying knowledge.  I'm only arguing that that avenue for gaining knowledge does not invalidate other avenues which lead to knowledge which is just as valuable and necessary.  The reasoning behind that is if that avenue of acquiring knowledge is all that's needed then what the hell are we doing here as physical creatures?

[Tippaporn]

59 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

 

Do you believe that, Sunmaster?

 

Please do answer that question, @Sunmaster, so I don't have to re-ask it a hundred frickin' times.  @Red Phoenix ignored answering it as well.  Maybe RP has exited this thread for good as I can't draw him out yet.

 

Also, I'm not looking for a simple "yes" or "no" answer for that really tells me little, so tell me in your own words what it means to you.

[Tippaporn]

42 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

58 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You put those words in my mouth. I never said that our experience as a physical creature is invalid nor meaningless. Hence, your whole indignation is built on a faulty interpretation of what I said.

 

Oh come now, Sunmaster.  Time and again you've told me that my book learning amounts to nothing compared with direct experience.  It's barren, are the words you once used, I believe  That invalidates book learning as having any true value.  And since book learning is experience, a part of our experience, then by extension it devalues the rest of experience.  So no, I didn't put any words in your mouth.  I could, if so inclined, go back to all of your posts and provide you with your own words.  You've a piss poor estimation of your own ego, for instance, which you've expressed many times.  It's internal dialogue is nothing more than monkey chatter.  How demeaning.  It inhibits you from realising your "true" self - again I remind you that your idea of identity is extremely limiting - and works against you.  And yet your ego is a portion of you.  How can you then speak so poorly of your own self and believe that a portion of it is your enemy?

 

Goofy, confused looks don't suffice as an answer, @Sunmaster.  Hopefully you'll respond to this once you get back this evening.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Oh come now, Sunmaster.  Time and again you've told me that my book learning amounts to nothing compared with direct experience.  It's barren, are the words you once used, I believe  That invalidates book learning as having any true value.  And since book learning is experience, a part of our experience, then by extension it devalues the rest of experience.  So no, I didn't put any words in your mouth.  I could, if so inclined, go back to all of your posts and provide you with your own words.  You've a piss poor estimation of your own ego, for instance, which you've expressed many times.  It's internal dialogue is nothing more than monkey chatter.  How demeaning.  It inhibits you from realising your "true" self - again I remind you that your idea of identity is extremely limiting - and works against you.  And yet your ego is a portion of you.  How can you then speak so poorly of your own self and believe that a portion of it is your enemy?

 

You mention 'direct experience'.

Well I'm 80 years old in a few months, I'm not a believer and never will be, here's my 'direct experience with christianity:

 

1. I went to a government school in Australia for primary education. At that time it was compulsory for children at attend Christian education for 2 hrs a week on Wed. mornings:

- Every child selected what 'group / religion' class they wanted to attend.-- Most kids played for the 2 hrs.

- Many kids jumped from class to class, and/or attended whatever class most of their friends attended. from 

- There was no consistency / progression if a child attended the same christianity class every week.

- Most 'ministers' or whatever handed out candy to encourage kids to attend their class.

-There was no 'class' for roman catholic kids, it was assumed all roman catholic kids went to convent or marist brothers schools.

 

My mother had completed a degree in education and in he day it was compulsory for teachers to complete courses to teach christianity but they didn't teach christianity because of the 2 hrs a week mentioned just above.

 

There was some drive from trained teachers and those doing their degree for the christianity courses to be dropped. Why? The thinking was that gov't schools should focus on the 3R's, physics, chemistry etc, and there should not be any religious teaching. Ultimately it was dropped from the teaching degree course and at the same time the 2 hrs every week at schools was totally cancelled.

 

2. At 20 yo I was conscripted and went into national service and to the war in Vietnam.

 

The first 3 months was rookie training in Australia. Near the end of the second month we were told that we would be attending a 1 hr lecture by the camp chaplain. We had to ask 'what is a chaplain?'. In this case the chaplain was a Church of England minister about 40 years old.

 

We marched in and the polite smiling chaplain told us:

- 'I am your friend' and he repeated again and again 'I am your friend'. And 'today you are very welcome to ask any questions, any questions at all and I will answer your questions'. 

- He continued about 'don't worry about going to war 'god and jesus will take care of you and won't get injured, god's love will ensure that doesn't happen. And I give you my personal guarantee you won't get hurt or injured.

 

Near the end of the 1 hr he asked for questions and pushed, and eventually 2 or 3 boys asked simple questions and their questions were answered by repetition of 'god's love will ensure you don't get hurt / don't get killed etc.

 

I stood up and then the chaplain asked me 'what's your question?' I replied 'please chaplain sir I have never understood where the bible came from'. The chaplain went into a rage came close to me and yelled 'how dare you ask such an insulting question, then told the 2 training NCOs and the platoon commander* sitting in the room to march me to the camp commanders office tell him that I had spoken in an insulting way to the chaplain.

 

The camp commanded instantly said 'you will do extra mess duties every morning for the rest of your time in this camp. Report to the mess at 3.30 am, help get things ready for the cooks, scrub the pot and plans etc and get back to your own barracks in time to shower and be on parade at 7.00 am. I wasn't given any chance by the camp commander to speak.

 

                                 * The platoon commander was a                                   Lieutenant who had recently                                         recently completed his tour of

                                 duty in VN.

 

About 2 days after the 1 hr one time session with the chaplain our platoon commander spoke to us and said 'there is danger, death and injury in Vn and nothing can protect you, and the chalain should have been more honest'. Later the same day our platoon commander spoke privately to me and mentioned that I had done nothing wrong.

 

We never again heard anything from the chaplain or what was available if needed etc., etc.  

 

There's more to this incident but for this post it highlights why I have never been a believer.  

Edited February 12 by scorecard

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

You mention 'direct experience'.

Well I'm 80 years old in a few months, I'm not a believer and never will be, here's my 'direct experience with christianity:

 

1. I went to a government school in Australia for primary education. At that time it was compulsory for children at attend Christian education for 2 hrs a week on Wed. mornings:

- Every child selected what 'group / religion' class they wanted to attend.-- Most kids played for the 2 hrs.

- Many kids jumped from class to class, and/or attended whatever class most of their friends attended. from 

- There was no consistency / progression if a child attended the same christianity class every week.

- Most 'ministers' or whatever handed out candy to encourage kids to attend their class.

-There was no 'class' for roman catholic kids, it was assumed all roman catholic kids went to convent or marist brothers schools.

 

My mother had completed a degree in education and in he day it was compulsory for teachers to complete courses to teach christianity but they didn't teach christianity because of the 2 hrs a week mentioned just above.

 

There was some drive from trained teachers and those doing their degree for the christianity courses to be dropped. Why? The thinking was that gov't schools should focus on the 3R's, physics, chemistry etc, and there should not be any religious teaching. Ultimately it was dropped from the teaching degree course and at the same time the 2 hrs every week at schools was totally cancelled.

 

2. At 20 yo I was conscripted and went into national service and to the war in Vietnam.

 

The first 3 months was rookie training in Australia. Near the end of the second month we were told that we would be attending a 1 hr lecture by the camp chaplain. We had to ask 'what is a chaplain?'. In this case the chaplain was a Church of England minister about 40 years old.

 

We marched in and the polite smiling chaplain told us:

- 'I am your friend' and he repeated again and again 'I am your friend'. And 'today you are very welcome to ask any questions, any questions at all and I will answer your questions'. 

- He continued about 'don't worry about going to war 'god and jesus will take care of you and won't get injured, god's love will ensure that doesn't happen. And I give you my personal guarantee you won't get hurt or injured.

 

Near the end of the 1 hr he asked for questions and pushed, and eventually 2 or 3 boys asked simple questions and their questions were answered by repetition of 'god's love will ensure you don't get hurt / don't get killed etc.

 

I stood up and then the chaplain asked me 'what's your question?' I replied 'please chaplain sir I have never understood where the bible came from'. The chaplain went into a rage came close to me and yelled 'how dare you ask such an insulting question, then told the 2 training NCOs and the platoon commander* sitting in the room to march me to the camp commanders office tell him that I had spoken in an insulting way to the chaplain.

 

The camp commanded instantly said 'you will do extra mess duties every morning for the rest of your time in this camp. Report to the mess at 3.30 am, help get things ready for the cooks, scrub the pot and plans etc and get back to your own barracks in time to shower and be on parade at 7.00 am. I wasn't given any chance by the camp commander to speak.

 

                                 * The platoon commander was a                                   Lieutenant who had recently                                         recently completed his tour of

                                 duty in VN.

 

About 2 days after the 1 hr one time session with the chaplain our platoon commander spoke to us and said 'there is danger, death and injury in Vn and nothing can protect you, and the chalain should have been more honest'. Later the same day our platoon commander spoke privately to me and mentioned that I had done nothing wrong.

 

We never again heard anything from the chaplain or what was available if needed etc., etc.  

 

There's more to this incident but for this post it highlights why I have never been a believer.  

 

Nice post, scorecard, and thanks for the personal story.  It was most enjoyable.  Your experience was a real eye opener for you.  A man of the cloth who does not truly believe what he preaches and so lies so that others maintain faith in his God.  Question his God and his wrath, not God's, will come down on you.  You might find some of that going on here.

 

BTW, here's an early 80th birthday greeting for you.

 

 

Edited February 12 by Tippaporn

[save the frogs]

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

sth?  Sorry, that renders your first statement unintelligible for me.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with your second statement, though.  And that's my beef with Sunmaster's idea.  Not my beef with Sunmaster the dude.  But with his idea.  All experience, on whatever level, has importance and validity.  I'm not arguing that an adventure in consciousness may be more powerful in it's brilliance and clarity in conveying knowledge.  I'm only arguing that that avenue for gaining knowledge does not invalidate other avenues which lead to knowledge which is just as valuable and necessary.  The reasoning behind that is if that avenue of acquiring knowledge is all that's needed then what the hell are we doing here as physical creatures?

yeah, good point

[save the frogs]

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Goofy, confused looks don't suffice as an answer, @Sunmaster.  Hopefully you'll respond to this once you get back this evening.

 

I'll give you 2000 baht if you can get off the internet for 2 weeks and stop arguing with people incessantly about minutae. 

 

Arguing incessantly is not a good thing, regardless who is right and whose ideas are more stupid than the other guys.

 

Go take a chill pill for a couple of weeks.

 

What you need is 7 women on your mind. Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy. And don't even try to understand. 

 

We may lose and we may win, but we may never be here again. 

 

 

Edited February 12 by save the frogs

[Sunmaster]

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Oh come now, Sunmaster.  Time and again you've told me that my book learning amounts to nothing compared with direct experience.  It's barren, are the words you once used, I believe  That invalidates book learning as having any true value.  And since book learning is experience, a part of our experience, then by extension it devalues the rest of experience.  So no, I didn't put any words in your mouth.  I could, if so inclined, go back to all of your posts and provide you with your own words.  You've a piss poor estimation of your own ego, for instance, which you've expressed many times.  It's internal dialogue is nothing more than monkey chatter.  How demeaning.  It inhibits you from realising your "true" self - again I remind you that your idea of identity is extremely limiting - and works against you.  And yet your ego is a portion of you.  How can you then speak so poorly of your own self and believe that a portion of it is your enemy?

Before I bestow my Magnum Opus upon you (not sure when), I will try to untangle this hot mess. I'm not sure if you just wrote this as a provocation or you really believe what you wrote here. 🤔

Time and again you've told me that my book learning amounts to nothing compared with direct experience.  It's barren, are the words you once used, I believe  That invalidates book learning as having any true value.  And since book learning is experience, a part of our experience, then by extension it devalues the rest of experience. 
This is not what I said. Feel free to go back and quote every post I made about this. I will try to make it as clear as possible and settle this once and for all. Intellectual knowledge gained through books and rational processing of data is important! It's important and valuable for those things that pertain to the realm of the mind (that includes the material world too). If you want to build a good bridge, you have to learn how to build it properly. If you want to know how the market works, you have to study economy. If you want to be a surgeon, you have to study medicine. This kind of knowledge is not the same as "spiritual" knowledge (= the knowledge of your true nature), though. The first is of the mind (doing), the second is beyond the mind (being).

Trying to gain spiritual knowledge by intellectual inquiry alone is what I object to. If your aim is to explore your inner, subjective world, you have to quieten the mind first. Only after can the mind be allowed to process the experience. If book-reading alone could give you spiritual knowledge, the world would be filled with saints. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is the case.

 You've a piss poor estimation of your own ego, for instance, which you've expressed many times.  It's internal dialogue is nothing more than monkey chatter.  How demeaning.  It inhibits you from realising your "true" self - again I remind you that your idea of identity is extremely limiting - and works against you.  And yet your ego is a portion of you.  How can you then speak so poorly of your own self and believe that a portion of it is your enemy?

 

Again, there is a time and place for everything. Here too I said it many times that the ego (and the mind it stems from) is a tool that fulfills a function. This has nothing to do with self-flaggelation, becoming a renunciate or denying this part of me. What I said is that in order to access the deepest parts of our being, the mind has to become your ally. As it is with the vast majority of people, the mind runs amok and produces an army of naughty little thought-monkies that constantly take us on thought-rollercoasters. Have you ever tried closing your eyes and focusing only on your breath? How long can you sustain that focus before a thought monkey takes your attention away. "Oh, I still have to reply to Sunmaster"..."The internet is slow today. I wonder why."..."Btw...what should I eat for dinner?"...."I really should eat less meat."...."I'm getting a bit fat."....and on and on it goes, the whole day, every day, the whole life. This chatter, this mental noise is what the problem is. The mind is a knife that has to be sharpened so that it becomes most effective. The mind has to be tamed like a wild horse. Only this way can the true identity (which is not the ego) reveal itself, otherwise you'll spend your time being catapulted from one thought to the other.
The mind, along with the ego it produces, are a part of you, like you rightly wrote. They are not you. They are a part of you. So, if they prevent me from revealing this bigger me, I will sure as hell tame that wild horse and kick the thought-monkies where the sun doesn't shine. 
To summarize....the mind is not the enemy. The restless mind is the enemy. The ego is not the enemy. The tyrannic ego is the enemy.

Hope this settles it. 

Edited February 12 by Sunmaster

[save the frogs]

what a sad sight to behold.

 

2 "cult leaders" going at it incessantly.

 

jesus h. 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I don't for a moment doubt your Damascus moment and certainly neither would I invalidate it.  But I'm sure that Damascus moment didn't enlighten you on all of life and reveal all answers to life.  It was proof of God's existence but in and of itself it didn't solve all of your earthly "problems."  Any and all of those problems are due to your unexamined beliefs.  These are two distinctly separate issues.

 

"I believe man is flawed and no good."  That, for instance, is a belief.  And an unexamined one, for if you were to seriously examine it you cannot but realise the truth is otherwise.  But the belief will produce the results which are it's nature.  And those results will be most unpleasant.  You simply cannot connect the dots as yet as to how exactly that belief plays out in your world.

IMO my problems are created by other people- some are just bureaucratic pen pushing losers that never had a real job, and others are created by nasty people that routinely cause problems for other people and some are by people that are so vile that they could probably never qualify for a decent job.

 

In your opinion I made them up in my mind to persecute myself, or I caused them somehow to appear in my life and cause me problems.

 

Which is more likely?

 

BTW I never wanted or needed to enlighten myself on all of life and reveal all answers to life. I don't need to understand why a sunset happens to enjoy it, and I didn't need to understand the intricacies of the human body's hormonal responses when it is aroused by the prospect of sex with an attractive and willing woman to enjoy the actuality of it.

 

Some of us are content to wander through life and enjoy as much of it as we are able to without analyzing it.

[save the frogs]

Mass shooting in a MEGA-Church

 

Joel Osteen: We don't know why these things happen, but we know God is in control.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

You mention 'direct experience'.

Well I'm 80 years old in a few months, I'm not a believer and never will be, here's my 'direct experience with christianity:

 

1. I went to a government school in Australia for primary education. At that time it was compulsory for children at attend Christian education for 2 hrs a week on Wed. mornings:

- Every child selected what 'group / religion' class they wanted to attend.-- Most kids played for the 2 hrs.

- Many kids jumped from class to class, and/or attended whatever class most of their friends attended. from 

- There was no consistency / progression if a child attended the same christianity class every week.

- Most 'ministers' or whatever handed out candy to encourage kids to attend their class.

-There was no 'class' for roman catholic kids, it was assumed all roman catholic kids went to convent or marist brothers schools.

 

My mother had completed a degree in education and in he day it was compulsory for teachers to complete courses to teach christianity but they didn't teach christianity because of the 2 hrs a week mentioned just above.

 

There was some drive from trained teachers and those doing their degree for the christianity courses to be dropped. Why? The thinking was that gov't schools should focus on the 3R's, physics, chemistry etc, and there should not be any religious teaching. Ultimately it was dropped from the teaching degree course and at the same time the 2 hrs every week at schools was totally cancelled.

 

2. At 20 yo I was conscripted and went into national service and to the war in Vietnam.

 

The first 3 months was rookie training in Australia. Near the end of the second month we were told that we would be attending a 1 hr lecture by the camp chaplain. We had to ask 'what is a chaplain?'. In this case the chaplain was a Church of England minister about 40 years old.

 

We marched in and the polite smiling chaplain told us:

- 'I am your friend' and he repeated again and again 'I am your friend'. And 'today you are very welcome to ask any questions, any questions at all and I will answer your questions'. 

- He continued about 'don't worry about going to war 'god and jesus will take care of you and won't get injured, god's love will ensure that doesn't happen. And I give you my personal guarantee you won't get hurt or injured.

 

Near the end of the 1 hr he asked for questions and pushed, and eventually 2 or 3 boys asked simple questions and their questions were answered by repetition of 'god's love will ensure you don't get hurt / don't get killed etc.

 

I stood up and then the chaplain asked me 'what's your question?' I replied 'please chaplain sir I have never understood where the bible came from'. The chaplain went into a rage came close to me and yelled 'how dare you ask such an insulting question, then told the 2 training NCOs and the platoon commander* sitting in the room to march me to the camp commanders office tell him that I had spoken in an insulting way to the chaplain.

 

The camp commanded instantly said 'you will do extra mess duties every morning for the rest of your time in this camp. Report to the mess at 3.30 am, help get things ready for the cooks, scrub the pot and plans etc and get back to your own barracks in time to shower and be on parade at 7.00 am. I wasn't given any chance by the camp commander to speak.

 

                                 * The platoon commander was a                                   Lieutenant who had recently                                         recently completed his tour of

                                 duty in VN.

 

About 2 days after the 1 hr one time session with the chaplain our platoon commander spoke to us and said 'there is danger, death and injury in Vn and nothing can protect you, and the chalain should have been more honest'. Later the same day our platoon commander spoke privately to me and mentioned that I had done nothing wrong.

 

We never again heard anything from the chaplain or what was available if needed etc., etc.  

 

There's more to this incident but for this post it highlights why I have never been a believer.  

Basically, from what I understand of what you wrote, is that you rejected the idea that God exists because you had a rotten chaplain. What if religion is not God? What if God is separate from religion? Religion needs God, but God does not need religion.

 

Not that it makes any difference to anyone else, of course. A belief in God needs no fellow believers to exist, no building to sing songs about it, etc.

I used to be religious, till I realised there wasn't much there there. Then I was agnostic, till I had an experience that convinced me God existed, but I never became religious again.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Mass shooting in a MEGA-Church

 

Joel Osteen: We don't know why these things happen, but we know God is in control.

 

 

All that proves is that some people have strange ideas. It proves nothing about the existence or otherwise of God.

[save the frogs]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All that proves is that some people have strange ideas. It proves nothing about the existence or otherwise of God.

 

I was mocking Osteen. It's a stupid comment. 

[Sunmaster]

47 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO my problems are created by other people- some are just bureaucratic pen pushing losers that never had a real job, and others are created by nasty people that routinely cause problems for other people and some are by people that are so vile that they could probably never qualify for a decent job.

 

In your opinion I made them up in my mind to persecute myself, or I caused them somehow to appear in my life and cause me problems.

 

Which is more likely?

 

BTW I never wanted or needed to enlighten myself on all of life and reveal all answers to life. I don't need to understand why a sunset happens to enjoy it, and I didn't need to understand the intricacies of the human body's hormonal responses when it is aroused by the prospect of sex with an attractive and willing woman to enjoy the actuality of it.

 

Some of us are content to wander through life and enjoy as much of it as we are able to without analyzing it.

 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

what a sad sight to behold.

 

2 "cult leaders" going at it incessantly.

 

jesus h. 

 

 

2 people discussing a topic in a civilized manner is "a sad sight to behold"?
"Cult leaders"?

🤣🤣🤣🤣
Please go on posting your videos about lizard people controlling your mind and don't worry about us. You seem to have a talent for that.

Thanks

[save the frogs]

11 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

This chatter, this mental noise is what the problem is.

 

No, no, no, it's not. More nonsense.

 

This is garbage that is perpetuated in multitudes of pseudo-spiritual nonsense textbooks.

 

An active mind is a good thing. It depends what you're thinking about.

 

The mind rests when you sleep.  

 

[Sunmaster]

38 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

No, no, no, it's not. More nonsense.

 

This is garbage that is perpetuated in multitudes of pseudo-spiritual nonsense textbooks.

 

An active mind is a good thing. It depends what you're thinking about.

 

The mind rests when you sleep.  

 

Ok, you are my new spiritual guide, oh wise one. 😁
How could I be so blind until now? 
 

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Time and again you've told me that my book learning amounts to nothing compared with direct experience.  It's barren, are the words you once used, I believe  That invalidates book learning as having any true value.  And since book learning is experience, a part of our experience, then by extension it devalues the rest of experience. 
This is not what I said.

 

After all of my harsh criticisms and you come back rather nonplussed.  Kudos to you, Sunmaster.  You've shown that you are truly secure within yourself. 

 

It's what's implied, Sunmaster.  It's what's implied.  You can't see that.  Yet.  It's you're very beliefs which blind you to it.

 

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I will try to make it as clear as possible and settle this once and for all. Intellectual knowledge gained through books and rational processing of data is important! It's important and valuable for those things that pertain to the realm of the mind (that includes the material world too). If you want to build a good bridge, you have to learn how to build it properly. If you want to know how the market works, you have to study economy. If you want to be a surgeon, you have to study medicine. This kind of knowledge is not the same as "spiritual" knowledge (= the knowledge of your true nature), though. The first is of the mind (doing), the second is beyond the mind (being).

 

You see, Sunmaster, what you don't get is that it's all spiritual.  All of it.  Remember this from Swami Sarvapriyananda's video?

 

 

You have Brahman on the far left, that which you are.  Everything on the right side is not the r-e-a-l you.  The goal is to get to Brahman.  Brahman is the spirit.  The rest is not.  That's the great distortion in eastern religion.  It purports that only Brahman is spiritual and the rest is not.  Your goal, Sunmaster, is to connect with that spiritual part of yourself and become it.  You've been hoodwinked into believing that the Sunmaster portion of yourself, including all of it's doings, is NOT spiritual.

 

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.

 

Because you believe that the Sunmaster portion of you, and all of it's doings, is not spiritual then the above statement makes no sense to you.  You can't see how you and all of you're doings are in fact spiritual.  They cannot be otherwise as they are 'you'.

 

You are, we all are, in this very moment spirits clothed in flesh, blood and bones.  For that portion is indeed a manifestation of our inner self.  That portion IS our inner self.  As you say, we already are that which we are.  You've got that correct, but only partially.  You fail to see yet that our physical existence IS a manifestation, a representation in symbolic form, in which inner being inserts ITSELF into a reality which it has created for the purpose of expressing itself in a new way.  Through that expression it creates itself in an entirely new fashion and then that expression of itself knows itself in new ways via experience in another reality.  The inner self does this eternally via creating an infinite number of realities, not just the physical, for the same purpose.

 

The abilities of the inner self are infinite.  Here we are meant to use what abilities we have to their fullest and in so doing we express our inner self.  The use of our abilities can find expression in an infinite number of ways.  To use your examples, as an economist and as a surgeon.  Those endeavours are spiritual in nature.  But since you believe that our doings in this world are not then you are blind to that fact.  Again, your very belief blinds you from seeing that.

 

Given that every reality has it's limitations, it's boundaries, then so any given individual within any reality is limited as to the amount of abilities he or she is able to express in any given lifetime.  Hence probable selves and reincarnational selves, et al.  For all of our abilities will be used and if they are not used by 'you' in a given lifetime, or a given reality, then they will be used and find expression by other 'yous'; whether that is a probable 'you' or a reincarnational 'you', or a counterpart 'you', and so on.

 

Rising to challenges is a basis for existence in every aspect of existence. It is the developer of all abilities, and at the risk of being trite, it is the responsibility of even the most minute particle of consciousness to use its own abilities, and all of its abilities, to the utmost. Upon the degree to which this is done rests the power and coherence of everything that is.

 

Here Seth explains the importance of using our abilities.  Again, whether the use those abilities are expressed in terms of being an economist or being a surgeon.  Again, ". . . it is the responsibility of even the most minute particle of consciousness to use its own abilities, and all of its abilities, to the utmost."

 

I've accused you, Sunmaster, of having an identity crisis.  I've told you several times that our concept of identity is extremely limited.  And I will chastise you now for never asking me what I meant by that or for never asking me anything about identity.  You have no curiosity about it.  I understand, though, why you wouldn't and didn't ask me.  For why would you need to hear a different explanation of what identity is when you already know what it is?  Your identity is Brahman.  What of Sunmaster?  Does he not have an identity?  Or is that identity not real, not valid?

 

Seth constantly refers to multi-personhood.  Over and over again he states that we are multidimensional beings.  To say that there is more to us than we realise means that we have many more "I-selves."  There is no single "I," not in terms of the physical nor in terms of the inner self.  I would fully understand if that concept might escape you.  Perhaps you may get a slight 'feel' for it but I doubt a single reading would give you any great clarity.  To understand that we are multidimensional beings is something that you would have to work at.  In the least to give it more than a passing thought, which may only result in you dismissing the concept entirely.  Which is quite possible if you are insistent on following the ideas of Vedanta, for multidimensionality does not at all fit within that framework.  And would indeed wreak havoc on that framework if it were to be included.

 

The bottom line here, Sunmaster, is that as long as you fail to understand that all of it is spiritual, you and all of your doings, as long as you fail to understand that there is nothing that is not spiritual, you will continue to make senseless divisions as to what is spiritual and what is not.  Sooner or later that effort will bring you to the proper understanding for the idea of divisions to the self do not work.

 

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

If book-reading alone could give you spiritual knowledge, the world would be filled with saints. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is the case.

 

I'm no saint, nor do I aspire to become one, but book learning has given me spiritual knowledge.  You can deny all you want that it has, until you turn blue in the face if you wish, but I know better. 

 

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Again, there is a time and place for everything. Here too I said it many times that the ego (and the mind it stems from) is a tool that fulfills a function. This has nothing to do with self-flaggelation, becoming a renunciate or denying this part of me. What I said is that in order to access the deepest parts of our being, the mind has to become your ally. As it is with the vast majority of people, the mind runs amok and produces an army of naughty little thought-monkies that constantly take us on thought-rollercoasters. Have you ever tried closing your eyes and focusing only on your breath? How long can you sustain that focus before a thought monkey takes your attention away. "Oh, I still have to reply to Sunmaster"..."The internet is slow today. I wonder why."..."Btw...what should I eat for dinner?"...."I really should eat less meat."...."I'm getting a bit fat."....and on and on it goes, the whole day, every day, the whole life. This chatter, this mental noise is what the problem is. The mind is a knife that has to be sharpened so that it becomes most effective. The mind has to be tamed like a wild horse. Only this way can the true identity (which is not the ego) reveal itself, otherwise you'll spend your time being catapulted from one thought to the other.
The mind, along with the ego it produces, are a part of you, like you rightly wrote. They are not you. They are a part of you. So, if they prevent me from revealing this bigger me, I will sure as hell tame that wild horse and kick the thought-monkies where the sun doesn't shine. 
To summarize....the mind is not the enemy. The restless mind is the enemy. The ego is not the enemy. The tyrannic ego is the enemy.

 

I've also accused you, Sunmaster, of not understanding the Seth material for you have admitted that it is convoluted.  You took great exception and spat out with great indignation that just because you said it was convoluted doesn't give me the right to say that you didn't understand it.  Well, friend, again the proof is in the pudding.  BTW, convoluted has this definition:  (esp. of expression in speech or writing) having a complicated structure and therefore difficult to understand.  Also, these synonyms:  baffling, perplexing, confused, puzzling, tangled.  To say something is convoluted and then claim it's understood would not be honest.

 

I've written, too, that it was most puzzling to me why you objected to my posting Seth's actual material and why you wanted me to explain it to you in my own words.  For it made no sense.  Would I be able to explain Seth's material better than Seth himself?  That's nonsensical.  It does make sense, though, in light of the fact that you have trouble understanding Seth's material due to it's 'convoluted' nature.

 

But again I say the proof is in the pudding.  And the pudding is what you wrote above.  The cornerstone of the Seth material is this:  You create your reality using ideas.  Thoughts being ideas.  Beliefs being ideas one accepts as "true."  The above clearly shows that you have no idea of what ideas are, where they come from, where they go, what their purpose is, and what effects they produce.  They are the very thing which creates your physical experience and yet this seems to go completely over your head.  You think you can tame them?  My response:    Again, this is a cornerstone of the Seth material and how can any of the rest of the material make any sense if that key concept is failed to be understood?  It can't.

 

This characteristic of materializing thoughts and emotions into physical realities is an attribute of the soul. Now in your reality, these thoughts are made physical. In other realities, they may be "constructed" in an entirely different fashion. So your soul, that which you are, constructs your physical daily reality for you from the nature of your thoughts and expectations.

...

You can readily see, therefore, how important your subjective feelings really are. This knowledge - that your universe is idea construction - can immediately give you clues that enable you to change your environment and circumstances beneficially.

 

If you want to reject that concept then there's naught I can do about it.  Keep attempting the impossible and carry on with 'taming' your thoughts for as long as you have the endurance to do so.  Vedanta has no idea of what thoughts, ideas and beliefs are because it doesn't at all attempt to explain them other that to say the are 'objects' in the realm of Maya.

 

The fact that you don't understand that it is ideas which create our experience then that also explains why you've never answered the question I've put to you asking where suffering comes from.  Unless you understand that you create your personal, private and en masse experience you cannot begin to answer the question.  Without the understanding that we create or own reality then any answer to that question will be entirely fabricated from whole cloth.

 

The fact is that each of you create your own physical reality; and en masse, you create both the glories and the terrors that exist within your earthly experience. Until you realize that you are the creators, you will refuse to accept this responsibility.

 

As well, it is not the mind or the ego which prevents the revealing of the 'bigger' you.  It is your beliefs.  I've said again and again that your concept of what the ego is is largely distorted.  Some of your ideas are correct but others woefully miss the mark.

 

It cannot relate to a reality that you will not allow it to perceive. It can poorly help you to survive when you do not allow it to use its abilities to discover those true conditions in which it must manipulate. You put blinders upon it, and then say that it cannot see.

 

Your beliefs are the blinders which you put on your ego.

 

Even so, it is much more resilient and eager to learn than is generally supposed. It is not natively as rigid as it seems. Its curiosity can be of great value.

If you have a limited conception of the nature of reality, then your ego will do its best to keep you in the small enclosed area of your accepted reality. If, on the other hand, your intuitions and creative instincts are allowed freedom, then they communicate some knowledge of greater dimensions to this most physically oriented portion of your personality.

 

Again, it is your beliefs which limit the ego and turn it into that 'object' which you have been led to believe inhibits your ability to perceive your greater reality.  To develop your ego via changing your beliefs in order to assist the ego in assisting you then you would call that preening the ego, I suppose.  But the ego is you.  The Sunmaster 'you'.

 

Part of my purpose is to acquaint your egotistical self with knowledge that is already known to a larger portion of your own consciousness, that you have long ignored.

 

Again, when you become aware that there is more to yourself then you will change the role that the ego plays.

 

You must also realize that while I use terms like "soul" or "entity," "inner self," and "present personality [ego]," I do so only for the sake of convenience, for one is a part of the other; there is no point where one begins and another ends.

 

Keeping in mind always that the divisions made are for "the sake of convenience" would prevent you from ever viewing the ego as an 'object' in Maya.

 

You seem to perceive exclusively through your physical senses, and yet you have only to extend your egotistical idea of reality, and you will find even your egotistical self accepting quite readily the existence of nonphysical information.
As it does, so its own ideas of its own nature will automatically change and expand, for you will have removed limitations to its growth.

 

Your idea of reality is whatever your beliefs about it are.  As you expand and therefore change your beliefs about reality then your ego becomes an ally and no longer the hindrance you have forced it to be due to your limited beliefs about reality.

 

Now often the ego acts as a dam, to hold back other perceptions - not because it was meant to, or because it is in the nature of an ego to behave in such a fashion, or even because it is a main function of an ego, but simply because you have been taught that the purpose of an ego is restrictive rather than expanding.

 

Currently you are completely, utterly convinced that the ego is restrictive; inhibiting.  It is what prevents you from realising an awareness of your inner self, and stands in the way of experiencing that inner reality.  Only, only if you insist that the ego works against you.

 

The ego does want to understand and interpret physical reality, and to relate to it. It wants to help you survive within physical existence, but by putting blinders upon it, you hamper its perception and native flexibility. Then because it is inflexible you say that this is the natural function and characteristic of the ego.

 

Again, you saddle the ego with poor beliefs and then blame it for it's poor functioning.  But you don't understand what beliefs are, what their function is, and certainly not what their effects are.  Well, one of those effects is that your beliefs convince you that the ego is the problem when you wish to connect with your inner reality.  For a second reading:

 

It cannot relate to a reality that you will not allow it to perceive. It can poorly help you to survive when you do not allow it to use its abilities to discover those true conditions in which it must manipulate. You put blinders upon it, and then say that it cannot see.

 

As long as you insist on your interpretation of what the ego is you won't begin to be able to understand what the ego truly is.  You need to set aside your ideas of what the ego is first before you can understand what Seth is explaining.

 

Now you seem to think that I do not understand your viewpoints, Sunmaster.  You fail to understand that I understand your viewpoints perfectly in all of their nitty gritty detail.  I understand perfectly well, for instance, your concept of the ego.  But it is you who do not understand my viewpoint.  And that's because you're too goddamned busy coming from yours.  You speak well, but you don't listen well.  Oh, I can hear your cries of indignation all the way to where I am sitting.  And yet again the proof is in the pudding.

 

Both you and @Red Phoenix have expressed to me your beliefs and where they come from.  Granted, Vedanta is only a single source for your world view, Sunmaster.  And granted as well that Gurdjieff is only a single source for RP's world view.  Now I have spent hours upon hours investigating your sources and have schooled myself as to how they view the world and why.  I've dedicated the time necessary to have an informed opinion regarding those sources.  Yet it's been painfully obvious to me that the two of you have not done the same with the Seth material.  For I have provided it to each of you and all I need to do to know that the two of you haven't done your homework is to see if there were any downloads.  Yes, eventually there were.  But the fact that there were downloads doesn't mean that any of those PDFs were ever opened and read by either of you.  The fact that neither of you have ever commented on that material, oftentimes even when asked, or have failed to ask me anything about the material points to the conclusion that neither of you have done your homework to understand where my world view comes from.  You guys haven't the interest.  And so you guys don't listen very well.  That's not an indictment, it is simply what it is.

 

Now Sunmaster has said that he's currently reading one of Seth's early, unpublished works so I give you credit there.  But I'll warn, as long as you bring your current beliefs with you and by doing so attempt to sift the material through those beliefs you will gain very little, if anything.

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

what a sad sight to behold.

 

2 "cult leaders" going at it incessantly.

 

jesus h.

 

You're in a cult and the leader of it, too, Frogs.  Your own, of which you are the only member and so forced to be it's leader, too. 

 

Please do share your beliefs about who you are, the world, the universe, reality, God, and whatever else.  You don't.  That keeps you safe.  For no one could then criticise you for what you believe.  And since no one knows what your beliefs are then you can always give the appearance of having 'normal' beliefs which "everyone" else subscribes to and agrees upon.  That also gives you free reign to criticise, poke fun at, and ridicule everyone else's beliefs and ideas.  Easy to do when you have none of your own.

 

Chicken, is what I call it.    You have no idea how transparent you are, Frogs.    Every village has a . . .

[Sunmaster]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You have Brahman on the far left, that which you are.  Everything on the right side is not the r-e-a-l you.  The goal is to get to Brahman.  Brahman is the spirit.  The rest is not.  That's the great distortion in eastern religion.  It purports that only Brahman is spiritual and the rest is not.  Your goal, Sunmaster, is to connect with that spiritual part of yourself and become it.  You've been hoodwinked into believing that the Sunmaster portion of yourself, including all of it's doings, is NOT spiritual.

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Of course everything is Brahman, there is nothing that is not Brahman. The distortion is in your head.
And of course, this body and this mind are also spiritual. Everything is "spiritual", even the dump I produced this morning. 
You are saying "Oh, everything is spiritual. We are all already enlightened. No need to do anything. Why striving to realize Brahman?" 
And another thing is BEING Brahman...having realized it in your life...living it. 
There is a simple test: Do you think you are enlightened right now? Do you think you are speaking from the One Consciousness now? Are you a wise saint right now? Don't be modest. If you are, please tell us.
The old issue....intellectual knowledge tells you that everything is spiritual and already illuminated, so the ego tells you to just sit back and pat yourself on the back, oh enlightened one.😁

 

The rest of your post is based on this false assumption.

Edited February 13 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Some of us are content to wander through life and enjoy as much of it as we are able to without analyzing it.

 

And some of us aren't.  Moral of the story?  To each their own.  As it should be. 

[Tippaporn]

26 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Of course everything is Brahman, there is nothing that is not Brahman. The distortion is in your head.
And of course, this body and this mind are also spiritual. Everything is "spiritual", even the dump I produced this morning. 
You are saying "Oh, everything is spiritual. We are all already enlightened. No need to do anything. Why striving to realize Brahman?" 
And another thing is BEING Brahman...having realized it in your life...living it. 
There is a simple test: Do you think you are enlightened right now? Do you think you are speaking from the One Consciousness now? Are you a wise saint right now? Don't be modest. If you are, please tell us.
The old issue....intellectual knowledge tells you that everything is spiritual and already illuminated, so the ego tells you to just sit back and pat yourself on the back, oh enlightened one.😁

 

The rest of your post is based on this false assumption.

 

Boy, that was a fast response, Sunmaster.  Not surprising as evidently you understood none of it.    But of course you can't understand any of it.  Your beliefs won't allow it. 

 

Anyway, let no man say that you or anyone else broke me.  For I lay claim to that.  I, too, woke this morning with fresh inspiration.  It had to do with my age old question of why I post on this or any other forum.  I received the answer this morning and it was clear as a bell.  I was going to post it all but thanks to your last post, Sunmaster, it would be in vain.    Thanks for saving me the time and trouble.    You can, if you'd like, reciprocate by thanking me for now never having to spend the time and effort to compose you Magnum Opus to me.  For it will only be more of the same.  Religious nonsense.

 

So I leave you to be the resident Swami, here, Sunmaster.  Swami Sunmaster.  That has a nice ring to it.  Maybe you can make your own YouTube videos and monetise them.  Not a bad idea, eh?  How many Swami white men are out there?  You could corner that market.  Make yourself famous, too.  And by realising fame (and possibly great fortune) people might listen and believe you, too.  You're not doing so well here. 

 

You're a good man, Sunmaster.  A very good man.  I wish you well on your journey to become Brahman. 

 

Cheers to you all,

 

Tippers

 

P.S.  In the far, far outside chance that anyone needs to contact me you can find me here:

 

 

[Sunmaster]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Boy, that was a fast response, Sunmaster.  Not surprising as evidently you understood none of it.    But of course you can't understand any of it.  Your beliefs won't allow it. 

 

Anyway, let no man say that you or anyone else broke me.  For I lay claim to that.  I, too, woke this morning with fresh inspiration.  It had to do with my age old question of why I post on this or any other forum.  I received the answer this morning and it was clear as a bell.  I was going to post it all but thanks to your last post, Sunmaster, it would be in vain.    Thanks for saving me the time and trouble.    You can, if you'd like, reciprocate by thanking me for now never having to spend the time and effort to compose you Magnum Opus to me.  For it will only be more of the same.  Religious nonsense.

 

So I leave you to be the resident Swami, here, Sunmaster.  Swami Sunmaster.  That has a nice ring to it.  Maybe you can make your own YouTube videos and monetise them.  Not a bad idea, eh?  How many Swami white men are out there?  You could corner that market.  Make yourself famous, too.  And by realising fame (and possibly great fortune) people might listen and believe you, too.  You're not doing so well here. 

 

You're a good man, Sunmaster.  A very good man.  I wish you well on your journey to become Brahman. 

 

Cheers to you all,

 

Tippers

 

P.S.  In the far, far outside chance that anyone needs to contact me you can find me here:

 

 

You say you can see my point of view very clearly.
By calling me "Swami" and "religious" you demonstrate that you clearly don't. I'm not surprised at all, tbh.

I will post the promised MO now as it is, since you're about to leave this place for good. It's not perfect, but not too bad either. 
This will settle everything on my side...I hope. 
 

[Sunmaster]

 

In the beginning of this thread it was very chaotic. There were dozens of people posting every day and most of them were materialists or atheists venting their frustration at religion. There were a couple of bible thumpers who were hammered into silence by a rather vociferous and aggressive atheist majority. There was absolutely no chance in hell these 2 groups would find any kind of understanding. Zero.
There was another small minority who I will call the Seekers. The seekers are people who refuse the reductionism of the atheists/materialists, they refuse the dogmatism of both science and religion, and seek a more dynamic, deeply personal approach to the question of divinity. I was one of them.
As the years passed, the balance in the thread shifted. The troll posts became less and less while there were more and more quality posts. A few atheists, agnostics and seekers tried to battle it out, debating a wide range of topics: religion, science, spirituality, aliens, psychedelic drugs, music, mystical experiences, philosophy, consciousness and consciousness research and many more. 
This was the time where I looked at myself and started to see that I was little more than a fraud. Here I was, fiercely defending spirituality from the attacks of the material reductionists, often frustrated at them for not getting what was so clear to me, praising direct experience over intellectual knowledge. But what about me? The main personal experience I had was that one time I experienced the Kundalini Awakening. This was all I could use to back up my point of view. But that was 30 years ago....what about now?
During this time I decided that it was time to "walk the talk", and so I started a daily practice of meditation. Most definitely one of the best decisions in my life. 

During the last year or so, the atmosphere in the thread changed. The usual posters were now a few materialists and a handful of seekers. The discussions were for the most part civilized and revolved around the topic of science, spirituality and how consciousness fits in both. There was a distinctive change in quality in the posts, but also in myself. I no longer got frustrated and irritated by the occasional troll posts (well, at least much less than before 55) and only focused on trying to convey the essence of spirituality in the best way I could. This is where my meditation practice came in handy. 

Among the seekers there was a fervent individual. A very rational and educated person who would debate everyone else into the ground by the sheer number of lengthy posts promoting his map of reality. I won't name him to preserve his privacy. 😄 At first, I considered him a sort of "ally" for the seekers. We had the same "opponents" after all. Lately however, another dynamic started to emerge and become clear: he was a scholar and not a seeker.

 

What is the difference?

Scholar:

• Focus: Acquires and accumulates knowledge through formal study and research.
• Tools: Relies on data, evidence, logic, and critical thinking.
• Strengths: Deep understanding of specific fields, expertise in analyzing information, ability to identify and solve problems within their area of study.
• Potential Limitations: Can be focused on details and miss the bigger picture, may prioritize theoretical knowledge over practical application, limited understanding of human nature and emotions.

Seeker:

• Focus: Understands the essence of things, seeks deep insights and meaning beyond intellectual knowledge.
• Tools: Relies on experience, intuition, empathy, and discernment.
• Strengths: Offers sound judgment, guides others with practical advice, sees complex situations from multiple perspectives, promotes peace and well-being.
• Potential Limitations: Cannot always explain their intuition logically, may not have formal academic credentials, their advice may seem subjective or anecdotal.

It became evident that he was the epitome of the scholar. He would post very long and verbose posts, almost always heavily sprinkled with quotes from his bible, outlining what his teacher teaches about this or that topic and how wrong everyone is who doesn't see the truth in those teachings. Total intellectual rigidity. A bit like the bible thumpers we all know.

He and I started to drift more and more apart, at least philosophically. The main point of contention being that direct experience trumps intellectual knowledge. He would not concede that there are levels in awareness and understanding of consciousness, and this belief created all sorts of distortions. 

The same way I gave up hoping that materialists would "see the light", I also started to lose hope that he would understand. The more I thought about it, the more it became clear that there was a qualitative gap between our points of view. I could see his position because I've been in the same place, but he couldn't see mine. In fact, he got so confused as to where I stand, that he even called me "religious", a "hater of books" and a hater of my ego! 😄

So, what is this all about? Qualitative gap? Levels of awareness/consciousness? Levels of understanding?

I picture it a bit like a tree. A tree grows in 2 directions: horizontal and vertical. On the horizontal line we find quantitative knowledge, on the vertical line qualitative knowledge.
Let's see this in more detail with some examples. If we look at our own personal evolution, we can detect several "jumps" in understanding: from child to adolescent, to a more mature understanding. These jumps are always connected to an increasingly wider and more inclusive awareness and understanding of the world and oneself. As a child our world is very small. We only care about ourselves, our body and our needs. A little older, we expand this world to include others. At first our immediate family and gradually friends as well. Then we discover our sexual nature and a whole new world opens before us. The previous levels of childhood are still there, but like the growth in a tree, new rings are forming around the core. Each new ring incorporates the old one and goes beyond it. The tree grows.
Let's take these 4 jumps or steps as we are all familiar with them.
A - early childhood/"My world is whatever I need",
B - late childhood/ "My world is my family and friends"
C - adolescence "I'm a sexual being",
D - adulthood "I'm finding my place in society"
(Please note: this is not the only way to categorize development. This is not meant to be a psychological treatise, but is simply a way to pave the road for my main point)

Each new step is a new level of branches on our consciousness tree. Once we set foot on a new level, we are forced to learn as much as possible about this level in order to navigate it successfully. This then is the horizontal knowledge we need in order to deal with the challenges of the new level. 

For A it will be learning to get that toy by pointing at it or screaming. Making yourself heard when you're hungry or when you are in discomfort. Everything revolves around you and your needs.
For B it will be learning how to get emotional gratification, feeling safe and loved. Lots of new boundaries are explored here. Everything revolves around "How far can I go?" and "Which behavior brings be benefits, which one will get my in trouble?" What is accepted and what not?
For C it will be learning how to navigate the world of mating, how to present yourself in a way to facilitate it and relate yourself to people outside your close family and friend's circle. We all know how difficult and stressful this learning process is!
For D it is learning how to be a productive and valuable member of society.

We have now identified vertical growth (various developmental levels) and horizontal growth (the knowledge accumulated on a specific developmental level). A refusal to acknowledge the existence of such levels and stages is for me as ridiculous as the flat earth madness. Funnily enough, it's one of the few topics most materialists and seekers seem to agree on. Not all though...

Now, most people will "climb" this tree of consciousness to a certain level. Our world here consists of strategies to get our physical needs fulfilled (A), our emotional needs fulfilled (B), our sexual needs fulfilled (C) and our social needs fulfilled (D). 

Some people however, develop a new kind of need, a need for meaning (E). This new need comes with its own set of challenges and with its own new level of understanding. Just like all previous levels, it transcends and includes the levels that preceded it. Questions like "Who am I?" and "What does it all mean?" become central. New questions receive new answers and new answers are then incorporated into a new framework. 

What has all this got to do with the scholar and the seeker?
First of all, there is a qualitative difference. The seeker is just a person who has climbed onto a higher branch of the consciousness tree and is now expanding the horizontal knowledge on that level. It has to be said that the jump from A to B to C to D all come quite naturally and effortlessly. You grow into them as part of your natural development as an individual. Jumping from D to E however (or man 3 VS man 4 [Gurdijeff]; or first tier VS second tier [Ken Wilber]), is much more radical and requires more of a conscious effort. E is neither required nor necessary to survive in our society, hence it is not pursued by many. 
The scholar is a person who is firmly established on the mind level and has explored and mapped this level in great detail. Whatever unknown there still is out there, is believed to be made known by simply more horizontal knowledge on that level.
The seeker however, knows that more horizontal knowledge will not provide or insure that qualitative jump onto the next higher branch. The seeker knows that holding on to that horizontal knowledge is the very thing that prevents the jump. 
 

The scholar reduces everything coming from above the tree into the framework of his own level. The scholar is unable to gain any real understanding from the seeker. The only thing he gets are catchy quotes and feel-good ideas. Would an 8 yo child know what it's like to be in puberty? You can try to explain it to him, he can see it in his older siblings maybe, but he will never truly know what it's like until he himself gets flooded by those hormones. Direct experience trumps intellectual, second-hand knowledge. 
When will the child know? When the child is ready to know.
When will the scholar know? When the scholar is ready to know.

On to the main point:

The difference between a scholar and a seeker is the direct experience of the inner world. Here is an analogy I thought of early this morning....
Direct experience gives a man a multi-dimensional "image" of the truth (what we usually call insight). After receiving this image, he then employs his rational mind to write the caption to this image. The caption however, despite his best efforts, is merely a very crude approximation of that image. It can never express the full impact of the image on the man, nor its multidimensional proprieties. Unfortunately, the caption is the only thing he can share when communicating with others. (Note: People further up the tree are capable of transmitting knowledge by presence alone. Captions are used sparingly or not at all.) This process transforms a normal man into a seeker. Picture first, caption later. 

The scholar on the other hand, goes at it in exactly the opposite way. He starts from the captions (building up his worldview by accumulating horizontal knowledge) and uses them to paint the image. Of course, being limited by words that only describe the image in such a crude fashion, will result in an equally crude and two-dimensional image. The image gained in such a manner in no way resembles the image gained by the seeker. It would be like comparing a stick figure drawing to Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam", times a million....and even that doesn't fully convey the difference in quality.
Yet the scholar will insist that his stick figure is in no way of lesser quality than Michelangelo's painting, simply because he doesn't accept the concept of quality (stages of development) in the first place. He only accepts quantity (horizontal knowledge) as a means to gain knowledge and reveal truth.

In the same way an adult can not force a child to jump levels (for instance jump from late childhood to puberty) but has to wait until that level emerges in the child as a consequence of his natural development, the seeker can not force the scholar to jump to the next tree branch. The scholar must first reach the limits of his level and see that those answers are no longer enough for the new arising questions he has. This creates a vacuum, a new need. The old is rejected, but there is nothing yet to take its place. This is the perfect condition for the next jump. 

So, what can we do? 
We can not force the development (neither in ourselves nor in others), but we can facilitate it by supplying the right conditions. Ideally, the body should be healthy (good food, enough sleep) and the mind should be cultivated by avoiding harmful distractions (TV news, dysfunctional relationships, irrelevant and superficial information and habits). A very effective method is meditation, which trains the mind to become still and thus allows that which is beyond (or beneath) the mind to emerge.

What will the scholar do at this point? 
He will insist that all possible knowledge to be gained on the vertical line (which he doesn't believe exists in the first place) is in fact to be found on the horizontal line. That means that all present unknowns can become knowns by simply reading and thinking. 
If it were as easy as this, the world would be filled with wise man, but where are they? There are intelligent people, there are people with high morals and ethics, and there are some who are a mixture of these attributes. But there are very, very few wise men. Why is that? Because it takes more than reading books to become wise. 
And no doubt will this very post go through the scholar's meat grinder of intellectual inquiry, chopped down and picked apart in search of the image. The scholar will certainly, once again mistake this caption for the image. 

And for this reason, despite the incessant demands of the scholar, the seeker (wisely) refuses to answer his questions, as the answers would merely be colorless captions of the actual images. That's all the scholar is looking for...more and more captions in order to form and strengthen the image he's painting. And that is fine....for the scholar. That's how he fulfills his needs. The seeker however, prefers to generate his own image by practice and direct, personal experience. It may not be perfect, it may have flaws and inaccuracies, but it's an authentic and unique image, not an empty copy of someone else's masterpiece. The seeker too is trying to fulfill needs, but he knows that this can not be achieved by more intellectual learning. Image first, caption later.

And this is the crux of the whole debate. The whole endeavor is futile. The seeker doesn't need the scholar's knowledge because he has already transcended that level and he already knows that the answers to his current questions are not to be found there. The scholar doesn't recognize nor accept the level of the seeker and mistakes it for just another place on his own level/branch. 

The 8 year old looks at his brother going through puberty and scratches his head..."He must have gone crazy!" 

Disclaimer: No books were harmed during the making of this post.

 

Live Long and Prosper

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

Well, since you spent the time and the effort to produce this masterpiece of pop psychology I feel it only polite to give you a response so that you might feel that your effort was for naught.

 

I laughed my ar$e off reading that, Sunmaster.  The assumptions you make about me which are the basis for your interpretations are truly of the grandest and most fanciful pure fiction.  I applaud you for ability to not get a single thing correct.    You've provided us all a most wonderful example which so beautifully illustrates the power of belief.  As long as you believe it to be true then true it is for you.  That almost deserves a standing ovation.  But since those aren't available then another hand clap will have to suffice. 

 

Poor Sunmaster has "seen the light" and believes that no one else has if it is not experienced in the identical fashion of his once-in=a=lifetime Kundalini Awakening.  Which he will strive for the rest of his life to hopefully repeat again.  Though he knows full well that it is not up to him - for he must have the blessing of some deity or other imagined force (can't remember what you called it but you mentioned it twice that I know of).

 

I can only give praise to God, or Buddha, or Brahman, or All That Is, or The One, or maybe all of them for sparing me a life imprisoned in the head of Sunmaster.  I would be fated to a miserable existence of cutting the overgrown and strangling weeds of so many useless beliefs and never denting them.

 

It was certainly a magnificently creative piece of pop psychology for which you deserve another round of applause.    Not rooted in science but firmly rooted in fantasy.  Though it is true that the two are often indistinguishable.  But it was highly artistic.

 

I first appeared an ally for my criticisms and insights were directed at our mutual "foes."  I was applauded    But once I dared turn those criticisms and insights in the direction of Sunmaster then I was suddenly transformed from a guy with great perceptions and wisdom to a verbose dolt who just didn't "get it."  The world can indeed turn on a dime. 

 

Well, this thread is all yours now, Sunmaster.  Good luck trying to "help" those who aren't looking for help, nor want help, nor seek help, and they really don't even need help.  They're all fine just the way they are.  You cannot alleviate any of their "suffering."  But go ye forth and do the work of Brahman. 

 

[Sunmaster]

Quod erat demonstrandum...

 

[save the frogs]

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

You're in a cult and the leader of it, too, Frogs.  Your own, of which you are the only member and so forced to be it's leader, too. 

 

Please do share your beliefs about who you are, the world, the universe, reality, God, and whatever else.  You don't.  That keeps you safe.  For no one could then criticise you for what you believe.  And since no one knows what your beliefs are then you can always give the appearance of having 'normal' beliefs which "everyone" else subscribes to and agrees upon.  That also gives you free reign to criticise, poke fun at, and ridicule everyone else's beliefs and ideas.  Easy to do when you have none of your own.

 

Chicken, is what I call it.    You have no idea how transparent you are, Frogs.    Every village has a . . .

 

I already have expressed some of my views.

Seth is NOT the way to salvation.

Don't read that crap!

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/13/2024 at 3:13 PM, Tippaporn said:

 

And some of us aren't.  Moral of the story?  To each their own.  As it should be. 

There is no moral of the story. People are, and some attempt to understand why they are, and most don't. Humans stand on the edge of extinction likely caused by themselves. After we are gone, another species will rise to prominence and all that we are will be as nothing. Perhaps like the walls in Sth America some trace will remain that the next dominant species will wonder about, or perhaps not.

 

What will history say about us? Will we be a barbaric species that gloried in killing each other, or a species that strove for the stars and fell short.

IMO the jury is out on that.