Seths 'undifferentiated level', Buddist 'jhana', + my 'void states'

BethAnne · June 06, 2016, 10:10:24 AM

voidypaul · June 12, 2016, 10:30:25 PM

Hi to you too barrie ,
well here goes , you said ,

Barrie ;
Hi Paul,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Seth does not originate his own material, but receives it from Seth2, therefore the material is not coming from Seth, but rather from Seth2. Not only do I disagree with this, but when it is true, I believe it is not in the human manner with the human separations of self that you insert into these comments.
paul ;

no i don't think you understand me or Seth correctly Barrie .

where have I inserted human seperations ?

I simply gave you the quotes to read saying that S2 originated the material for the sessions.

I did not say that Seth did not originate his own mat', just not the Seth mat' that is dictated via jane + is the foundation + core of the books , the essential philosophical txt , but not the personal sess' or class sess' etc or any other of Seth's comments or commentaries .

So you go on to say ;

Barrie ;

So, I disagree with your interpretations. There are a number of things going on in these comments. In part, Seth2 is talking about when Seth2 is giving information. At first, Seth had to interpret it; and then, eventually, Jane was able to get it herself from within from Seth, and speak the words herself.

paul;
I had made no interpretations , but you seem to have .

but yes , Jane was able to get the material more or less directly from S2 whilst 'Seth stood aside' in a personal manner as he said , (sort of like a telephone exchange) , just passing the mat' directly thru without his own mark upon it .

Barrie ;

In other words, at first, when Seth2 tried to give information, Seth just had to translate it in his own "voice." As Jane got better as a medium, she was able to get the information in Seth2's voice—altho I believe Seth still had to do some translating within Jane, so to speak.

paul ;
ok , so Jane was able to contact Seth 2 almost directly occasionally whilst Seth 'sat out' so to spk + therefore did not need to translate for S2 for that time but just gave a little helping hand to pass the mat' on to Jane like a medium or channel himself .
What do you mean about the voices , it seems irrelevant .

but yep , still with you here .

Barrie ;

Sometimes everything is pure 100 percent Seth and other times Seth is translating information from Seth2, and putting it into his own words—but to use metaphors—this would be more like a focal personality, or person, responding to its own inspiration, than it is like person getting information from another person.

paul ;

ok , here we part company again . i agree broadly with,

''Sometimes everything is pure 100 percent Seth and other times Seth is translating information from Seth2, and putting it into his own words'' But ,

All of the essential mat' is from S2 wether Seth translates it directly or says it in his own way .
When the mat' is 100% Seth as you say , i think what you should be saying is that it is Seth's 100% translation of the material from Seth 2 .

or,
that Seth is giving personal sess' or some such thing .

Barrie ;

''but to use metaphors—this would be more like a focal personality, or person, responding to its own inspiration, than it is like person getting information from another person.

paul ;

sorry but you are wrong Barrie .

Inspiration as Seth has said comes directly from the inner self + does not originate in the recieving personality (be it Seth or you or whomever).
Also this metaphor about one person + another has nothing to do with the simple statement i made to you + is just a figment of your own imagination . Your contribution , not mine .

In a v broad sense , S2 is a non-phys' being + his reality is 'outside' of the system in which we + Seth have our reality . He is one of the originators of this sys' of reality .
S2 is way beyond Seth + his reality + is quite seperate , in fact they inhabit different dimensions entirely
Even Christ is way beyond Seths abilities + He is a phys' being .
Seth is an expansive personality as far as we are concerned but is a small fish within the greater reality which S2 communicates to him . S2 was never even a phys' being so to make such an insipid metaphor is ludicrous to the extreme .

Barrie;

The person and his inspiration are not separate; but two people are.

paul ;
go back + read your seth then Barie , where he states that inspiration is directly from the inner self + does not origionate in the ego or phys' cons' personality , which is why it seems so alien or from another source because it does not have the stamp of the phys' brain or personal cons' upon it as it comes from beyond the ego + phys' reality.

It is the same with Seth , his insp' comes from beyond the reality in which he has his existence .

Seth did not know of the seth material untill S2 gave it to him , so how much more distinct + different do you need to get .

rubbish metaphor as it does'nt even fit the argument i made , where did i insert 2 people into my statement . This your fabrication not mine thank you .

Barrie ;

On Seth's entity level, there is no separation of self as we know or experience it on Earth as focal personalities.

paul ;
of course there is you numpty but it is just simply of a different order , as Seth is merely a minute fragment of S2's reality . Seth cannot contain the reality of S2 so there is a massive difference in their realities .
S2 does not even have or use self structures himself Barrie , he creates them , like he created the Seth self structure.
S2 communicates the mat' + Seth translates it + teaches it to others , as Jane has done for Seth but what you imply is like saying that Jane is as much the source of Seth's teaching as Seth is himself + this is clearly cobblers .

Seth did not have the mat' until S2 'gave' it to him , as Jane did not have the mat' until Seth gave it to her
Seth puts his mark on the mat' + it appears to originate from him but it is quite clear from the chapters i gave you that S2 is the originator of the mat + they both explain this quite clearly . Seth is but a portion of S2's reality , he is aware of his connection to S2 but he is not S2 , only an independent portion , as we are indep' port's of our own inner selves but we not inner selves (ourselves) yet .

if Seth recieves the mat' from 'outside' of the sys' in which he has his reality then obviously the source is much much more knowlegable than seth + quite seperate + exists in a dimension in which Seth would be quickly overwhelmed , as Jane or you or i would be overwhelmed if we had to face full force the reality in which Seth exists . Of course there is separation Barrie even if only illusory , otherwise all us lowly beings would go insane from too much info' + this includes Seth's position in relation to S2 , Seth would flip out if he was made fully aware of S2 reality .

When we recieve inspiration , it is not from our phys', cons' ego selves but from the inner self , which is what Seth is , Seth is not an entity as is S2 , so he must recieve his inspiration (+ the material) from S2 .

Barrie ;

Seth2 (Session 408): He is much more aware of our relationship however than you are of your relationship to him

Barrie NOW Comments: So, as a person may speak and move back and forth between his creativity, inspiration and stream-of-consciousness comments, and then go back to his intellectual thoughts and thinking—and have may happen repeatedly thru a long discussion or writing process—is what I believe happens within Seth as he gives the material—but instead of calling it Seth's stream of consciousness—at HIS level, where the Selves are not separated as our functionally are—it is actually Seth2. That is, Seth's relationship to Seth2 is CLOSER to our relationship to our own stream-of-consciousness, than it is to our relationship between two separate beings or two separate selves.

paul ;
as i said you have Seths concept of inspiration all wrong + i never once suggested what you say i have about 2 seperate beings or selves , wakey wakey Barrie . You may have been debating with a dolt recently but i expect more from you , + also not to infer something in my comments that is not there + to make futile metaphors from it is nuts , OK

Seth has said , pure inspiration is from the inner self + if the ego can open up to this then for a while as you say he is in the stream + there seems to be no diff' between one + the other , but when his ego closes down this contact , then it is as if the ego self + the inner self are diffrent + in diff' realities + functionally they are . This is pretty much the same with S2 + Seth , when Seth is able , he comm' with S2 but when he is not in comm' with S2 he is simply Seth , but the material he teaches is still from S2 + is not originated by Seth himself . He then passed it on to Jane when he could + teaches it at his level of existence .

Barrie ;

To put another way, Seth2 would be much closer to Seth's deeper thoughts, than to a whole other self. Thus, Seth IS Seth2; and Seth2 is Seth—but more expansive, so to speak.

paul ;

Rubbish , Seth is simply a minute portion of S2's reality which makes S2 a much 'larger' other self + 'he' exists on the other side of Seth's uncons' which seperates them , as we are seperated from our own inner selves by our own uncons' , (which is a 'barrier' that unites as well as seperates; Seth) so it is certainly not like deeper thoughts on Seths part , as you put it . S2 does not even have thoughts as we know them Barrie , which presents another level of seperation because Seth does have + use thoughts .

S2 exists more in a void state of con's or within Seth's undifferentiated levels , which are formless + have no images or thoughts (as we know them) + are completely 'outside' of Seth's universal system . S2 is totally seperate in most respects from Seths reality in which Seth still uses forms , images + thoughts to comm' his reality + this is
v v v very different from S2's reality . Seth would freak out if he got dumped into S2's reality .

Barrie ;

Seth2 (Session 407): "Seth is what I am, and yet I am more than Seth is. Seth is however independent (smile, eyes open), and continues to develop as I continue to develop also. (Smile.) In the spacious present you see, we both exist.

Barrie NOW Comments: Remember, Seth has a totally hugely different conscious awareness of and interaction within the spacious present than we consciously do as focal personalities in F1.

paul ;

not entirely Barrie , Christ has a far greater knowledge than Seth + He is phys' + alive now + there are others.

Seth himself has not been into the undifferentiated levels (void states) + does not have a personal description of such states, only those given to him by S2 , but S2's existence IS within these undiff' levels . Seth is still within this universal system , which is a seperate dimension from S2's + therefore quite quite different + requires quite different beings to manipulate within them . There is a vast gulf of diffrerence between S2 + Seth .

Because i have experienced Seth's undiff' levels , on several levels , which i call void states , i am aware that there is much more to these formless realities than Seth has ever described even via S2. Seth may possibly have gone on to more fully describe the undiff' areas or levels , but he never claimed to have entered into them at any time in any of the mat' he spoke of , + he has at times described the reality or dimension in which he exists .

Barrie ;

So, I do not believe that the whole Seth material is not Seth. Why do I say that? For a number of reasons, but let's look at this one. Look at what Seth says (CAPS FOR EMPHASIS) regarding "another personality" which is Seth2:

Seth (Session 588): "Now: The soul knows itself, and is not confused by terms or definitions. Through showing you the nature of my own reality, I hope to teach you the nature of your own.

Paul ;
so ? whats your point here Barrie ?.
Except that the same could be said of S2 in relation to Seth .

Barrie ;
"You are not bound to any category or corner of existence. Your reality cannot be measured any more than mine. I hope to illustrate the function of consciousness and personality through writing this book and enlarging your concepts.

Paul ;
same as above , So what ? Nothing to do with S2 being a more or less seperate being to Seth is it.

Barrie ;
"Now I began by telling you that I was dictating this material through the auspices of a woman of whom I was quite fond. Let me now tell you that there are other realities involved. THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS WILL BE WRITTEN BY ANOTHER PERSONALITY, who stands relatively in the same position to me as I stand to the woman through whom I am now speaking."

Barrie Comments: IF the "following paragraphs will be written by another personality," then it obviously implies that the previous paragraphs where NOT written by another possibility.

paul ;
Seth obviously says his own things of course but the mat' that is given to Jane which is not personal in one way or another , is the real material from S2 , Seth interprets what S2 has given him + teaches it to others but S2 is the originator of the actual material , + it never has been Seth as we know him .
Here too you have agreed plainly that S2 is another personality which negates your falacious argument that they are both one + the same . Anyway Seth is a personality essence + S2 is an identity which are very different in sethian terms . Identities come 'before' + therefore create self structures + not the other way around .

PS ; i have to continue this in the following post as a single post cannot contain it all

voidypaul · June 12, 2016, 10:31:17 PM

Ok here's the follow on

Barrie ;

Barrie NOW Comments: Here are those next paragraphs Seth speaks of:

Seth2 (Session 588): "We are the voices who speak without tongues of our own. We are sources of that energy from which you come. We are creators, yet we have also been created. We seeded your universe as you seed other realities.

"We do not exist in your historical terms, nor have we known physical existence. Our joy created the exaltation from which your world comes. Our existence is such that communication must be made by others to you.

"Verbal symbols have no meaning for us. Our experience is not translatable. We hope our intent is. In the vast infinite scope of consciousness, all is possible. There is meaning in each thought We perceive your thoughts as lights. They form patterns. (Each syllable was so carefully and separately pronounced.)

"Because of the difficulties of communication, it is nearly impossible for us to explain our reality. Know only that we exist. We send immeasurable vitality to you, and support all of those structures of consciousness with which you are familiar. You are never alone. (Pause.) We have always sent emissaries to you who understand your needs. Though you do not know us, we cherish you.

"Seth is a point in my reference, in our reference. He is an ancient portion of us. (Pause.) We are separate but united. (Long pause.) Always the spirit forms the flesh."

Barrie NOW Comments: So, first off, THOSE paragraphs were written by Seth2. This means that the other paragraphs were written by Seth.

paul ;
It in no way implies that the when Seth is spkg on his own (when S2 is not directly spkg through him) that he has originated the mat' he teaches , he simply stamps his own personality + exellent philosophical attributes onto the material + passes it on in his own new way, but the origin + SOURCE remains the same , S2 . Seth does not need to spk for S2 directly as he can contain the info' given him by S2 + teach it at any time without the aid of S2
but the source is still from S2 ; always was + always will be .

Barrie ;
Second: To try to separate Seth and Seth2 in the manner that you try, does not really fit who and what they are. They are not people like we are. When we speak of us humans, we can say there really is no separation between selves, and so forth, but for practical F1 purposes there ARE these separations—like between conscious, subconscious and unconscious, between various incarnations, between focal personalities and entities, etc. There really is NO separation, but from the focal personality's perspective—there is and has to be.

Paul ;
i repeat again , i did not propose that S2 + Seth were like people anywhere in my initial comments to you .

Also , S2 states ;

1. That he, S2 is a creator + seeds universes etc .
Seth himself is like a newborn kitten in comparison .

2. S2 has never existed in historical terms , but Seth has + in fact has only recently finished with his reinc' cycle + that obviously shows a massive difference/seperation between them .

3. S2 sent Seth as an emissary to us . S2 created Seth as Seth created Frank Watts , there is always the apparent seperation + hierarchy . Seth is a point in S2's reference + not the other way around , as Frank
Watts is a point in Seths reference + not the other way round .
S2 says , 'We are separate but united.' The seperation is essential or Seth would not exist as he does, but they are united in spirit , as we all are , in ATI , but unless there were the very real seperations we would all suffer a rampant information overload + complete insanity , including Seth .
The seperations are there for our own benefit + the same goes for Seth + S2 .

4. S2's reality includes the Seth reality , not the other way around . Seths reality does not include S2's reality , that is an impossibility , maybe a minute fraction of it so that Seth can then recieve something akin to inspiration + the Seth mat' from S2 , which he then he teaches to others on his level + to jane when she was here .

5. S2 clearly states
All divisions are to some extent arbitrary. The source (underlined) of this material is the same as it has always been .
I , who am the source , (pause) , sent a portion of myself , an independent portion , to you . Seth as you then thought of him , was far more than a delivery boy however , for it was his peculiar personality , + his particular qualities , which gave the material life for you .
He transmitted it in personal terms , made it understandable through a transmutation of himself .

paul ;
How much more of a clear statement do you need Barrie , it is patently obvious that Seth is somewhat more than just a delivery boy but the relationship is quite clear , S2 is the dogs bollox + Seth is recieving
his wisdom + knowledge from him + did NOT originate it himself . Regardless of the fact that they are of the same entity , but that entity IS S2 .
S2 does not exist as some sort of deeper thoughts on Seths behalf as you have stated Barrie , that is another rediculous metaphor as S2 has his existence completely outside of the universal system in which Seth has his reality .
Even Christ goes waaaaaaaay beyond Seth in his abilities + attributes + he lives now , in the flesh .

Barrie ;
Seth2 (Session 408): He is much more aware of our relationship however than you are of your relationship to him

Barrie NOW Comments: SO from Seth's perspective, this type of human, F1-purpose separation—just doesn't exist for it is not needed—and so Seth and Seth 2 are really more like aspects of the same Self. To use an analogy, with humans, you can't really separate inspiration from the intellectual writing process, altho they are separate—they are united together in practical ways which make them "one." You wouldn't look at them as two separate personalities. One called "inspiration" and the other "intellect." They are part of the same personality, the focal personality. We said, "Fred's inspiration is amazing. "Fred's intellect is amazing."

I believe this is MORE like the relationship between Seth and Seth2—as far as we human's can understand it. But I do not believe their relationship in THEIR practical sense is like any person's is to their own entity—which usually remaims quite "hidden" from the waking, conscious F1 self in any practical way.

Thus, Seth2 says:
Seth2: "Seth is a point in my reference, in our reference. He is an ancient portion of us. (Pause.) We are separate but united. (Long pause.) Always the spirit forms the flesh."

Barrie NOW Comments: So, to say that Seth2 gives the information to Seth, and Seth just translates it—is way too human an interpretation—seeing an entity like Seth—as an equivalent of one focal personality—and then comparing that one focal personality's to Seth. Seth & Seth2 may have the same descriptive type of relationship. but NOT the same substantive type.

paul ;
for one , Seth is not an entity , S2 is .
Why is Seths translating of S2's mat' way too human for you barrie ? It is what it is, a translation .
Yet again Barrie , i made no comparisson to focal personalities , you did you bafoon .
Descriptive/substantive ? I think you might mean qualitative/quantative , as Seth + S2 are the same in a qualitative sense, as we all are, but entirely different in a quantative sense as S2 exists in a much much 'higher'
+ seperate dimension than Seth does .

Barrie ;
Now, let's go back and look at Session 407:

Seth2 (Session 407): "Seth is what I am, and yet I am more than Seth is. Seth is however independent (smile, eyes open), and continues to develop as I continue to develop also. (Smile.) In the spacious present you see, we both exist.

"Some material he can present to you more clearly than I. This was particularly true up to this present point. (Pause. I wondered: if Seth isn't speaking now, who is?) He is closer to you in personality makeup and closer to your reality, therefore he could transmit ideas to Ruburt in more understandable terms than I.

"There was a point, you see, of interpretation and translation (pause) as Seth interpreted material from me in such a way that Ruburt could then receive it. At our last session, with the greater efficiency and the development on Ruburt's part (pause), the material was more direct, and the translation at his end automatic and smoothly performed."

Barrie NOW Comments: As I interpret this in our human terms, and IN METAPHOR, sometimes Seth speaks to us using HIS conscious mind; and sometimes HIS subconscious mind. And in that light, "some material he (Seth) can present more clearly than I (Seth2).

paul ;
Try + stop using useless + superfluous metaphors Barrie + you might be able to get a clear point across but you confuse the issue with your over intellectualising + end up straying from the point .
Seth only presents the mat' more clearly than S2 because he is closer to us than S2 is + for absolutely no other reason + this has nothing to do with Seths cons' or subcons' states . S2 could not present the mat' clearly by himself simply because we would not understand it in the form in which he transmits it , hence the need for a Seth to do this job , as a translator + intermediary . But that does not mean in any way that the mat ' originates in Seth but , as allways the source is S2 .
Its that simple Barrie .

Barrie ;

This is more like Seth's subconscious mind, then another Self. When Seth2 first tried to speak, Seth interpreted Seth2 in order for Jane to receive what he said. Now, here, Seth2 can speak for himself, but still with Seth translating it—but now Jane can speak those translations instead of Seth speaking them for her.

Other times, it may just be Seth speaking entirely on his own, so to speak; and other times translating what Seth2 is saying but saying it is his own voice—which in OUR metaphor would be like a person speaking "stream of consciousness."

Let's again look at this from Session 408:

Seth2 (Session 408): "Your first Seth is independent, and I am independent. (Pause.) Because he is a part of my reality does not mean that he is less an individual. My reality simply includes more, now, within your particular coordinates; and that last is important.

"He is another aspect of me while being himself. (Pause.) In your terms, I am a guide he also follows. He is much more aware of our relationship however than you are of your relationship to him. (Pause; well over one minute long.) Your time is required...

Barrie NOW Comments: It would be like someone saying that Barrie does not write his poems because he gets them, in part, large or small, from his inner voice, his inner self, his guide, etc etc. This would be foolish to say, to separate me as not me or not writing my poems because I get things separate from my ordinary conscious mind. In the same manner, you can say that I don't dream, that no one dreams because these dreams, also, come from an alternative source, other than the waking conscious self.

paul ;
well obviously if the poems come from beyond your cons' mind Barrie then it is not you who has originated them is it , but the inner self as you said . This inner self is your creator + will send you inspiration sometimes but it is sheer arrogance + pollyanna to lay claim to it as your own . Your inner self is not you Barrie , you are a small portion of its reality .
The cons' self creates its own dreams as a by product of being physical but it does not create the inspiration that comes to it , which is from the inner self .

Barrie ;
Quote from: voidypaul
Seth says to dissociate daily , regularly ,

Where does Seth say this? I'd rather see the quote myself than solely rely on your interpretation of it, if that is what it is. Thanks.

paul ;
The quotes are somewhere at the begining of Vol 1 , early sess' i think .
You really need to read the mat' right from the begining Barrie , you are supposed to be someone who has a good knowledge of the Seth material (+ in some respects you do have) so that folks can come to you for advice on sethian concepts , but how many times have i put forward concepts + ideas from Seth that you fail to recognise ? 3/4 times ? get your books out again old bean + let it sink in this time , as you appear not to know what you are talking about sometimes , especially on the topics i have put forward .

peace , paul

barrie · June 13, 2016, 03:51:27 AM

Paul,

We just have very, very, very different views on and interpretations of Seth, the Seth material and very different definitions of the concepts involved. You should feel free to believe exactly as you do--as I shall feel free to believe as I do and to disagree with a great deal of what you say. But as they say, that is what makes a horse race. That said, I do find our interactions more like going in circles than getting anywhere new.

For a tiny example that branches out into much larger issues: I believe my inner voice, inner self or whatever anyone wishes to call it--IS me. I don't see the separation as you do. So, I believe any poem I write which includes in large or small part--any inspiration or words or stanzas that come from beyond my conscious mind, so to speak, is still ME writing the poem. Feel free to disagree.

As for me, I believe that I encompass much more than my focal personality. My focal personality's ego has expanded beyond what I originally believed it was or could be before I started reading the material. So, in MY terms--I am my inner voice, and my inner voice is me. And there is much more to my inner voice than me--and more to me than my inner voice.

Now, those statements may be meaningless to you; or wrong; or mistaken--and if only I understood correctly, etc etc.

To me, my statements are profound, deep and true. Yet, I also know, recognize and believe that they are my beliefs—which is all we have to go on here on the physical plane. We believe we know the truth. We believe we understand what absolute truths are or if they exist or not. We never KNOW anything. But rather we speculate and assume that we do--so that we can function on this plane.

You may believe otherwise, which is your right, of course--and you should always trust yourself over me or anyone else. But that doesn't make you right and me wrong; or me right and you wrong--despite whatever our differing beliefs are on those topics and issue. I may often or sometimes believe I'm right and vice versa for you.

So, I offer you this example regarding my poem-writing to demonstrate how and why I find our interactions pretty circular and fruitless. You have your beliefs about and definitions of things and I have mine--and we disagree on fundamental levels--concerning the self, inner voice, Seth2, Seth, their relationship and on and on.

I could go thru your post line by line and say how and why I disagree with this and that; and what I agree with--and you will write back saying how I, Barrie, don't understand and should read more--because, of course, if I did read more and read again--then I'd obviously agree with you--as you offer your interpretations and definitions as truth and fact--because you DO understand correctly—and those who disagree do not--and then this will go on and on.

OR--do you at least realize that what you claim and the definitions and interpretations that you come up with--are actually and solely your opinions and beliefs--and not facts?

In any case, I do recognize that what I say about the Seth material and how I interpret it, and so forth, are my interpretations and beliefs--which others may agree with or not--with my blessings which they don't need--and they may agree with me or not--based on their own interpretations and beliefs.

As for us, I have tried to find common ground--but you seem to think/believe in such a black/white and right/wrong manner -- that our discussions do become circular and even pointless.

In closing, I shall give you just two more examples of the futility and fruitlessness of which I speak:

Paul Writes:
1. S2 is a creator + seeds universes etc . Seth himself is like a newborn kitten in comparison .
2. S2 has never existed in historical terms , but Seth has + in fact has only recently finished with his reinc' cycle + that obviously shows a massive difference/seperation between them

Barrie Responds: I would not describe Seth like a newborn kitten. To ME, that description is absurd. Seth 2 has said of Seth:

Seth II (ESP Class, 10-14-69): "We sent him to you in your terms in some indescribably distant past. He entered your universe in a reality I find difficult to remember. He gave guidance to your kind for eons of your time."

Barrie NOW Comments: 1. Altho Seth2 is much more and much more vast etc than Seth, Seth still has "given guidance to your kind for eons of your time." THIS, Paul, to me, is not like a "newborn kitten."

Now, you can believe that Seth IS like a newborn kitten, but I find the discussion fruitless and circular. I am not very interested simply in what you believe and how correct you believe you are, and certainly not that what you seem to believe is fact.

I was interested in a sharing of beliefs and maybe finding some common ground—BUT your definitions and interpretations are so rigid and different from mine—that that attempt has proven circular and fruitless. For it seems that you take your interpretations as facts. Seth IS like a newborn kitten to you, and therefore, you believe that that is what Seth is. No room for discussion—only agreement with you or being wrong.

2. You, Paul, also write, "Seth has, in fact, has only recently finished with his reincarnational cycle."

Barrie NOW Comments: Now, it is true that Frank Watts lived in the 20th Century—but YOUR concept and understanding of this is simply not mine. As I see it, time is not linear. Time is simultaneous, as you also believe, I'm sure. And so even tho Watts recently lived, the concept of Seth "recently finishing" his reincarnational cycle makes little sense to me. It is not like Seth and his awareness as a nonphysical being just "began" after Watts died, and so Seth is like a new-born kitten.

Seth can still always send forth a part of himself to be physical, while simultaneously being ancient himself.

As Seth2 said, Seth was sent to the human race "in some indescribably distant past... He gave guidance to your kind for eons of your time." This is NOT the description of a personality who just "recently finished...his reincarnational cycle."

Also, as Seth2 said:

Seth2 (Session 419): "Seth as you know him will not be reincarnated, but other portions of our entity will be born in flesh, for we have a part in all worlds and all realities. We are among the most ancient of entities in your terms."

Barrie Comments: So, "other portions" of Seth2, who is "among the most ancient of entities...will be born in flesh." Does THIS mean that Seth2 has not finished his reincarnational cycle yet—and so therefore is not even a newborn kitten like Seth? I ask that rhetorically.

Barrie NOW Concludes: I hope I have given you clear examples of the vast differences between our interpretations. You read things and take them to places that I do not. I very much disagree with most of your conclusions, descriptions and definitions of things. So much so, that our discourse just becomes circular—with your declarations of how you are right and I am wrong—with seemingly no inkling that you are just stating your beliefs and not facts. But it is your right and choice to do so...but all of this makes our discourse both unpleasant and fruitless. Not quite the best combination.

As I said, I can go thru your whole response, line by line—but I believe it will prove as fruitless and circular as always. I don't suggest that you reread the material so that you will eventually agree with me—and see the error of your thinking, and so forth. I trust that you will find your answers in your time, as I will continue to find mine.

I left Seth class to find my own answers and not rely on Seth...and so I guess it may seem obvious that I have no need or desire to rely on you either. Whatever it is that I "know" and understand or don't know and understand—will progress and grow with a continued trust in myself and trying to hear and understand what others believe—so I can either use, discard or adapt whatever parts I find of use or not of use; or interesting alternative views and so forth.

voidypaul · June 18, 2016, 12:05:22 PM

Barrie's reply ;

Paul,

We just have very, very, very different views on and interpretations of Seth, the Seth material and very different definitions of the concepts involved. You should feel free to believe exactly as you do--as I shall feel free to believe as I do and to disagree with a great deal of what you say. But as they say, that is what makes a horse race. That said, I do find our interactions more like going in circles than getting anywhere new.

paul ;

Actually Barrie you need to stop telling me or anyone else that they ''should feel free to believe exactly as they wish--as you shall feel free to believe as you do'' because that is complete bull as far as the material is concerned .
No one , not me or you should have their own beliefs or interpretatiions of the mat' , it is to stand as it is + not be pissed on by you or anyone . And as someone who is supposed to be knoledgeable , you should NOT be encouraging anyone to be happy with their own beliefs + interpretations of the mat' but putting them straight when they have got it wrong . As i have been at pains to do with you .

So now i am going to give you a complete + utter grilling old bean about your own innapropriate + way off missinterpretations + misconceptions of the material , so hold on to your vain ego as you will not be able to procrastinate your way out of this one.

point 1 ;
when i 1st posted you about the void states , you told me that Seth had not ever mentioned such a thing as void , but you were wrong of course + yet you have still posted the same rubbish on this forum 5yrs later you fool, ie ,

Barrie;
For starters...define what YOU mean by the term "void" and let's see if it is or is not found in the Seth material.

We also know that Seth did not use the term "void," and Seth really cared about his word choices.

paul ;
Straighten up Barrie , either you understand that seth mentioned void or you do not , which is it with you ? And y do you feel you have to question me about it all over again when this was supposed to be sorted 5yrs ago ?
Trying to press a few buttons or make me out to be wrong on this site too , very dubious Barrie + entirely ungentlemanly . Rude actually + rather dimwitted .

Point 2 ;
The fairytales you spout about the blinking on + off + into the spacious present + F2 .

I have said several times now that the off 'period' was about the negative interval which is a part of the negative or antimatter plane of the 3 field system in which we have our reality + which in turn is a part of the whole universal system ,
( i wrote about this in the same post about Seth2 being the source of the seth material + before that . Y have you have conveniently not bothered to answer this question ?)

So you told me that i must be reinterpreting seth or expressing my own beliefs + that it was nowhere in the Seth mat' . ie ,

Barrie ;
Barrie NOW Responds: Where do you come up with these things? Its great if you believe them, as you should, but where are they in the Seth material? They are not there. To say that your ideas are supported by the Seth material, I believe, is a total fabrication; just not true.
So let me further explain how this relates to our blinking and flickering in out of physical reality? This is how:
Over and over again each instant, we "blink" out of F1 and focus in the spacious present of F2 and "return" to or refocus on F1.

paul ;
You are absolutely + utterly wrong , yet again .

What is it with you Barrie , is your ego so dominant that you can't admit when you are wrong ? Its no wonder you think so highly of your own wayward interpretations of the Seth mat' , because it feels soooo right to your massive ego .

You obviously did'nt even read the quotes i gave you + i have asked pretty please on many an occasion but no Barrie has his own intepretations + barie is an old class member so Barrie must be right , yes a right prat actually . I think you left the class sessions because you are an arrogant fool mate , find your own answers my ass , more like scared of any truths that Seth might have pointed out to you .

So to repeat myself yet again,

we'll go back to the blinking (pulsating) off + on, into + out of the negative field (or antimatter) which is a part of the 3- field system that makes up our small part of this universal system of manifestation , + which you say is a figment of my imagination , + how wrong i am + misguided , well now i have gotten to the point of,
off with the kiddy gloves + fck you for being so rude + stupid enough not to have read the quotes i gave you .

So here it is again Barrie , lets see if this time you will actually read the quotes + understand them properly this time + then see if you have the nuts to admit that you are wrong + retract your devisive + unfounded comments to me .

Vol 2 , sess' 61 , pg 151

''...... the fact is , mat' on your field is composed of constant energy pulsations ; + while to you the appearance is one of permanence to a fair degree ..............etc
'' therefore there is what i call the neg' interval , when one pulsation has vanished from your plane + another is about to take its place .........etc

'' You do not percieve the neg' interval ''

'' Our neg' interevals do indeed have something to do with antimatter , i prefer to call it neg' matter .''

+ vol 3 , sess 109 , pg 156

'' Both the dream univ' + the univ' of neg' mat' then are by-products of the phys' univ' , .........etc ''

''........in this manner your phys' univ' , dream univ' + univ' of neg' mat' have come together , while retaining their boundaries as a more or less closed sys' .''

paul ;

I am right about this (+ other subjects you have rubbished me for) , not because i believe i am right or that it is my interpretation or beliefs , as you so arrogantly put it , but because i have read it + am repeating more or less exactly what i have read in the Seth mat' , you fool .

So its about time you read it , + give credit where credit is due , unless of course you are'nt big enough , + quite honestly if you are'nt then if anyone else takes the time to look up these quotes they will also see that you have embarrassed yourself (yet again) + should not be taken seriously when you make your own uneducated guesses or put forward your own assumptions, interpretations or beliefs as to what Seth has or has not said .

Except of course when you quote him directly .

Barrie ;

As for me, I believe that I encompass much more than my focal personality. My focal personality's ego has expanded beyond what I originally believed it was or could be before I started reading the material. So, in MY terms--I am my inner voice, and my inner voice is me. And there is much more to my inner voice than me--and more to me than my inner voice.

paul ;
absolute bull' , you mean your ego has expanded . Your inner inspirational voice comes from the inner self + it is patently obvious that you are not an inner self Barrie , just an over inflated egotistical self . It is Not because you know the Seth mat' but because of the fallacious interpretations you make up from it .

Barrie ;

To me, my statements are profound, deep and true. Yet, I also know, recognize and believe that they are my beliefs—which is all we have to go on here on the physical plane. We believe we know the truth. We believe we understand what absolute truths are or if they exist or not. We never KNOW anything. But rather we speculate and assume that we do--so that we can function on this plane.

paul ;
no you ass, beliefs are NOT all we have to go on , we have the Seth mat' which you have brutalised by your interpretations + then delude yourself into believing are actually profound, deep and true meanings but are merely your own weak brew of assumptions about the Seth mat' because you have not read it properly nor understood what he said .

And do try + stop projecting or passing on your own misinterpretations to others .

I would suggest ,again, that you re-read the books b4 you make any further
embarrassing cock-ups .

Barrie ;

You may believe otherwise, which is your right, of course--and you should always trust yourself over me or anyone else. But that doesn't make you right and me wrong; or me right and you wrong--despite whatever our differing beliefs are on those topics and issue. I may often or sometimes believe I'm right and vice versa for you.

paul ;
fck off with your nambypamby i believe this + you believe that + this is my interpretation + that is yours bull .

I talk only of the Seth mat' , + your superfluous beliefs about the pulsations are an example of how wayward you are + why i keep telling you to go back to the books rather than rely on your own feeble ego + its so v wrong assumptions/interpretations + beliefs + rather childlike suppositions of the Seth material .

And you teach this shyte to other people + pretend to be knowledgable ! You are not even half right about the pulsations , so that makes you as much a pretender as Frank who you villify for his own obvious self translations of the material , look in the mirror Barrie .

You are as bad as Frank the pretender whom you like to divest of his sethian delusions , you should divest yourself of your own delusions too Barrie or remain a hypocrite , as you choose .

Barrie ;

So, I offer you this example regarding my poem-writing to demonstrate how and why I find our interactions pretty circular and fruitless. You have your beliefs about and definitions of things and I have mine--and we disagree on fundamental levels--concerning the self, inner voice, Seth2, Seth, their relationship and on and on.

paul ;
yeah sure Barrie , + when i find the quotes about inspiration i will come back + stuff them down your throat also , or apologise (which you seem incapable of) .

Barrie ;

OR--do you at least realize that what you claim and the definitions and interpretations that you come up with--are actually and solely your opinions and beliefs--and not facts?

In any case, I do recognize that what I say about the Seth material and how I interpret it, and so forth, are my interpretations and beliefs--which others may agree with or not--with my blessings which they don't need--and they may agree with me or not--based on their own interpretations and beliefs.

paul ;

the freakin whole point is that you are NOT meant to be reinterpreting the Seth mat' Barrie , but putting it across as it is , not how you think it should be . How do you think it was that Christianity , Buddhism etc got so fckd up , except by nincompoops like you putting their own crappy interpretations on the material .

Y do you think that Seth only came thru Jane , to stop asses like you + Frank from teaching a perverted form of Seth .

voidypaul · June 18, 2016, 12:05:48 PM

Barrie ;

As for us, I have tried to find common ground--but you seem to think/believe in such a black/white and right/wrong manner -- that our discussions do become circular and even pointless.

paul ;
no, actually you merely prevaricate + procrastinate + like to believe what you imagine about the seth mat' is true , + won't even admit when you are wrong .

+ i give information that can be backed up by actual + real Seth mat' .

Barrie ;

In closing, I shall give you just two more examples of the futility and fruitlessness of which I speak:

Paul Writes:

1. S2 is a creator + seeds universes etc . Seth himself is like a newborn kitten in comparison .
2. S2 has never existed in historical terms , but Seth has + in fact has only recently finished with his reinc' cycle + that obviously shows a massive difference/seperation between them

Barrie Responds: I would not describe Seth like a newborn kitten. To ME, that description is absurd.
Barrie NOW Comments: 1. Altho Seth2 is much more and much more vast etc than Seth, Seth still has "given guidance to your kind for eons of your time." THIS, Paul, to me, is not like a "newborn kitten."
Now, you can believe that Seth IS like a newborn kitten, but I find the discussion fruitless and circular.
For it seems that you take your interpretations as facts. Seth IS like a newborn kitten to you, and therefore, you believe that that is what Seth is. No room for discussion—only agreement with you or being wrong.

paul ;

fckg read things properly + stop putting your own feeble interpretations + distortions on what is said . I quite clearly stated that Seth is like a kitten in comparison to S2 + not as you have projected on to it , in comparisson to me or anyone else (except the living Christ of course) .

Our discussions are circular + fruitless because you make of them something they are not, nor were ever meant to be . STOP projecting onto or overlaying my words with some other meanings out of your own imagination , so that you can accuse me of something that i have not said , just stop fckg doing that you dimwit .

Barrie ;

I am not very interested simply in what you believe and how correct you believe you are, and certainly not that what you seem to believe is fact.

I was interested in a sharing of beliefs and maybe finding some common ground—BUT your definitions and interpretations are so rigid and different from mine—that that attempt has proven circular and fruitless.

paul ;
i am not interested in sharing beliefs or interpretations Barrie , just the Seth material as it is , (even if you find this to be a rigidity in me) , + how it relates to any other material + NOT reinterpreting it as you love to do , which is sheer arrogance + totally misleading to whomever you talk to .

Barrie ;

You, Paul, also write, "Seth has, in fact, has only recently finished with his reincarnational cycle."

Barrie NOW Comments: Now, it is true that Frank Watts lived in the 20th Century—but YOUR concept and understanding of this is simply not mine. As I see it, time is not linear. Time is simultaneous, as you also believe, I'm sure. And so even tho Watts recently lived, the concept of Seth "recently finishing" his reincarnational cycle makes little sense to me. It is not like Seth and his awareness as a nonphysical being just "began" after Watts died, and so Seth is like a new-born kitten.

Seth can still always send forth a part of himself to be physical, while simultaneously being ancient himself.

paul ;

again you show a feeble understanding of the seth mat' Barrie.
There are souls who spend thousands of yrs coming + going b4 they finish with their reinc'cycle . Y would Seth talk of living souls who were born in Egyptian times + even 1000's of yrs b4 that in the Atlantean culture + even b4 that as one of the speakers Seth mentioned ? Which were freakin eons ago you numpty .
And anyway , parts of an entity split off from the main branch as Jane did from seth so there are always parts of an entity that will go on experiencing phys' reality , whilst other parts finish off their cycles + move on to other levels .
Seth himself has obviously only just finished with his incar' cycle or y would he + S2 say so , do you think that even they are lying to you or have misinterpreted something themselves ? Obviously you think you know better than even them .
One does not finish one's cycle several times Barrie but only once + Seths was just recently + then of course he collected all of his knowledge together + became a whole or inner self himself, + then began his teachings . As jane as Rupbert or Robert as Joseph will do .
Y is this so difficult for you to understand + accept ?
Y DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATIONS OVER + ABOVE WHAT BOTH SETH + S2 HAVE SAID ? That is arrogant + entirely wrong of you .

Barrie ;

As Seth2 said, Seth was sent to the human race "in some indescribably distant past... He gave guidance to your kind for eons of your time." This is NOT the description of a personality who just "recently finished...his reincarnational cycle."

paul ;
why not Barrie ? I have just explained about different parts of an entity spliting off from the main branch + you have both Seths + S2's comments , or is it just because you don't think it could be possible for seth to have only just finished his cycle , or you just can't believe it even when seth + S2 have said so ? Y do you like to cherry pick what you will or won't believe of seths teachings?

WHAT KNOWLEDGE DO YOU HAVE THAT PROVES DIFFERENTLY Mr Brainiac ?

Barrie ;

Seth2 (Session 419): "Seth as you know him will not be reincarnated, but other portions of our entity will be born in flesh, for we have a part in all worlds and all realities. We are among the most ancient of entities in your terms."

Barrie Comments: So, "other portions" of Seth2, who is "among the most ancient of entities...will be born in flesh." Does THIS mean that Seth2 has not finished his reincarnational cycle yet—and so therefore is not even a newborn kitten like Seth? I ask that rhetorically.

paul ;
Rhetorically my ass .

S2 is not + has never been a phys' being so how the fck can he have a reinc' cycle ? He simply says that other 'portions' of his entity will be born in flesh .

As Jane split off from Seth so other portions will have split off from either Seth or Jane or Rob + will continue on with their own cycles , or the entity will send out a brand new seth personality , but all of which are still from the same origional S2 entity as Seth + Jane + Robert are all from the same origonal Seth that was phys' born eons ago + even if that origional Seth has moved on to other dimensions of existence , as our Seth has only just recently done so , there will allways be portions in existence or brand new fragments sent out by the entity ,,, to follow their own incarnational cycles .

Barrie ;

Barrie NOW Concludes: I hope I have given you clear examples of the vast differences between our interpretations. You read things and take them to places that I do not. I very much disagree with most of your conclusions, descriptions and definitions of things. So much so, that our discourse just becomes circular—with your declarations of how you are right and I am wrong—with seemingly no inkling that you are just stating your beliefs and not facts. But it is your right and choice to do so...but all of this makes our discourse both unpleasant and fruitless. Not quite the best combination.

paul ;

no i do not interpret or have my own beliefs about the seth mat' i only spk of what i have read + digested of the Seth mat'.
It is you who have placed your own interpretations + beliefs on seths mat' Barrie + then you want to argue from your own misguided interpretations .

Like the void + the pulsating , + you can add to this ever growing list the undifferentiated levels (which are identical to my initial void states) + are things which you do not believe are in the seth mat' , but just another figment of my imagination , you dingbat .

Barrie ;

As I said, I can go thru your whole response, line by line—but I believe it will prove as fruitless and circular as always. I don't suggest that you reread the material so that you will eventually agree with me—and see the error of your thinking, and so forth. I trust that you will find your answers in your time, as I will continue to find mine.

paul ;

no Barrie it is your reading of the seth mat that is fruitless/ falacious + circular because you wont listen to anyone who tries nicely (as i have done) to put you right on such matters .
Your arrogant little ego wont let you grow Barrie + in fact you are blinded by it . Our debates are only circular because you have never read any of the quotes i have given you + insist that your own intepretations are correct , you wally .

Barrie ;

I left Seth class to find my own answers and not rely on Seth...and so I guess it may seem obvious that I have no need or desire to rely on you either. Whatever it is that I "know" and understand or don't know and understand—will progress and grow with a continued trust in myself and trying to hear and understand what others believe—so I can either use, discard or adapt whatever parts I find of use or not of use; or interesting alternative views and so forth.

paul ;

yes you were as much an arrogant fool then as you are now . Not rely on Seth ? How foolish you are , as your own interpretations are so much more pathetic + innapropriate than Seths .

So here's the list of your faux pas barrie .

1. the void , which you eventually had to concede to me , after a very long time
but still used recently to try + make me out to be wrong again.

2. undifferentiated field, which again you said was not in the Seth material , even when i gave you quotes + you have also refused to admit the obvious similarities to my 1st void state .

3. this pulsating on + off , etc , which for some bizzare reason you still seem to think is into the sp' pr' + F2 , even after quotes i have given you .

Also the negative field or antimatter + the 3 field system , which are to do with the pulsations + again you have told me that i am making this up , you twat .

4. Dissociation . same as above , go look it up you fool .

5. You kept tellig me that i said that cons' did not exist b4 the void + this is a fabrication of yours also , show me where i said this + i will concede the
point , you eventually had to agree but without any comment on your wrong + misleading assumptions about me , v ungraceful Barrie + v immature .

6. I have never said that non-being + void are the same thing , another of your dismal missunderstandings again .

You have no understanding of non-being whatsoever .

7. that Christ was + is a much more advanced being than Seth . This outraged you , + you would'nt believe it untill you eventually read the session i sent you .

So after all these occaisions you have been wrong about me , you still wont trust my opinions + still continue to insist that i missinterpret or have misguided beliefs + yet it has been proven to be you who are mistaken in their views + interpretations,
you numbskull .

Barrie ;

NON-BEING is not a state of nothingness. It is a state in which probabilities exist, etc. but can't be physicalized. This would be like the creation of the quantum state, to see it at that level and to use quantum those terms of today. The place in which ATI put the "quantum state," this void, is not the heart of physical reality. EVERYTHING is composed of the quantum state as everything is ATI as well. Likewise, the sperm entering the egg, is not the heart of a human being that we all must get back to or long for.

paul ;
Whaaat . I don't even know where to begin as to how senseless + arbitrary this mish mash is , you said above that probabilities exist, etc. but can't be physicalized , noooo Barrie it is expressed NOT physicalized + there is awhole world of difference in these two wordings .

Non-being + quantum states , are you serious ? Quantum states are a piss in the snow as far as ATI + nonbeing is concerned , + how do you put indiv' cons' + quantum states together then Barrie + where is this in the Seth mat'?
You may be close when you say these quantum states have something to do with void (+ energy) but what has that got to do with non-being ?

You are the great detractor + provaricator , you have some wild imagination mate . + Definately not v sethian .

You have made a fool of yourself Barrie simply because you have not bothered
to read the quotes i have given you , how dippy is that + how rude to keep arguing a point when you have not even the barest foundations of knowledge , even when they are offered you as direct quotes from Seth .

You are a hypocrite because you argue (rather frantically) with Frank the pretender that he distorts the Seth mat' when that is exactly what you have been doing yourself with me , you dipstick .

so up yours too mr i think this is so fruitless + circular .

If you only deign to respond to one topic i listed , make it the blinking on + off , as i'd like to know if you have gotten up to date on that one in particular , oh , + no don't thank me for putting you right , just pretend you knew all along , mate .

peace (or whatever it is you get from this) , paul

barrie · June 19, 2016, 04:15:39 AM

Paul, What I get from reading your posts is such an incredible unpleasantness, anger and insulting rudeness--that makes even trying to write back to you a chore of maneuvering thru manure. For arguments sake, let's say every single thing you write is true--and all my responses are wrong and mistaken--it still would not call for one iota of your judgmental name-calling, nastiness and unpleasantness.

I've tried to work around it, but it is so offensive as to be detrimental to the joy of the moment or the joy of interaction. Why would I want to wade thru such bad, negative vibes and unfriendliness? My answer is that I would not. It is just too hostile and unpleasant. I have tried to forge some sort of path of fun thru your vibes and arrogance (as I see it), but I have not succeeded. As I said, even if you were 100 percent correct, your attitude is so shitty and uncongenial—that I'd rather remain ignorant than learn from such a person who communicates as you do. That said, I do disagree with almost all you say—so as to who is correct or not with our interpretations is up for question—something I can see but you cannot. Your world is so black and white you can't even see that you make interpretations.

All in all, your responses make it not worthwhile trying to open myself up to you. You, Paul, cannot just accept people either having different interpretations or having different understandable points of view. For you, it's your way or the highway. You don't seem to have the capacity to understand how other people think—and not simply see their thinking as either agreeing with you (right and smart) or disagreeing with you (wrong and stupid). There are reasonable and rational places for disagreement and different interpretations that you just cannot see or accept. Your black and white world allows for no gray, and I enjoy the gray.

Paul, I see this comment of yours a good example and indicadive of your way of thinking that I have been describing:

Paul Writes: no i do not interpret or have my own beliefs about the seth mat' i only spk of what i have read + digested of the Seth mat'.

Barrie NOW Responds: The fact that you believe that you do not interpret the Seth material or have your own beliefs about the Seth material—leaves me both speechless, metaphorically speaking, and is precisely exactly what I have been saying about the problems of communicating with you. Now, you are free to continue believing that you don't interpret and don't have beliefs about the material—but I proudly do—for that is what human beings do—we interpret things and believe things.

I don't expect you any longer to understand what I'm saying—for your belief system is so vastly different than mine—but I say it for my own sake—to know that I have said it in our communication.

Besides the "fact" that all humans interpret and have beliefs about whatever they read, meet or do—speaking specifically about the Seth material--what I've learned from Seth class is precisely to interpret the material, add to it, speculate and assume about it, carry it further that it is, listen to and trust myself, and on and on—all that you seem to loathe—is what I encourage people to do. So, what further name-calling do you have to say now—with what list of errors and mistakes in my thinking? Thankfully, my lesson from Seth was/is to trust myself over anyone—including Seth, and certainly including such a person as you.

Paul Writes: "Actually Barrie you need to stop telling me or anyone else that they ''should feel free to believe exactly as they wish--as you shall feel free to believe as you do'' because that is complete bull as far as the material is concerned .

"No one , not me or you should have their own beliefs or interpretatiions of the mat' , it is to stand as it is + not be pissed on by you or anyone . And as someone who is supposed to be knoledgeable , you should NOT be encouraging anyone to be happy with their own beliefs + interpretations of the mat' but putting them straight when they have got it wrong."

Barrie Responds: Thank you, Paul, for so clearly delineating how far apart our beliefs and feelings are. I couldn't disagree with you more strongly than if you told me turtles grow from spaghetti and melt like ice cream at zero degrees. You have really opened up my eyes as to what is in your mind and heart and realize how deeply futile our discussions are. I could not have said my thoughts about you any more clear that you just did above. Are you sure you are not joking?

Paul Writes:If you only deign to respond to one topic i listed , make it the blinking on + off , as i'd like to know if you have gotten up to date on that one in particular , oh , + no don't thank me for putting you right , just pretend you knew all along , mate .

Barrie Responds: I have tried to respond to you on many points, but your responses back are so intolerant, rude and filled with name-calling—besides not seeing that you have beleifs and interpretations too—that it is fruitless to communicate with you...as I'm sure this communication will also prove. I responded and Seth and Seth2 just as an example—and your response back just proves how fruitless it is to try to have an intelligent discourse with you—and how rude and unpleasant you are.

I was once a skeptic board—for months and months--the whole board consisted of skeptics who believed in nothing nonphysical or psychic at all—we had fundamental differences on the nature of reality from A-Z – I was the only "believer" as they called me--and yet I was able to have civil discourse of disagreement with them, a whole BOARDFUL of them – and none were near as unpleasant, nasty, intolerant and narrow-minded in their disagreements as you are.

Let me give you examples just in your last responses to me—that are filled with such unpleasant, offensive and intolerant namecallling:

1. no, actually you merely prevaricate + procrastinate + like to believe what you imagine about the seth mat' is true , + won't even admit when you are wrong .
2. fckg read things properly + stop putting your own feeble interpretations + distortions on what is said .
3. STOP projecting onto or overlaying my words with some other meanings out of your own imagination...just stop fckg doing that you dimwit .
4. i am not interested in sharing beliefs or interpretations Barrie , just the Seth material as it is...NOT reinterpreting it as you love to do , which is sheer arrogance + totally misleading to whomever you talk to .
5. again you show a feeble understanding of the seth mat' Barrie.
6. .... Which were freakin eons ago you numpty .
7. Y DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATIONS OVER + ABOVE WHAT BOTH SETH + S2 HAVE SAID ? That is arrogant + entirely wrong of you .
8. WHAT KNOWLEDGE DO YOU HAVE THAT PROVES DIFFERENTLY Mr Brainiac ?
9. Rhetorically my ass .
10. It is you who have placed your own interpretations + beliefs on seths mat' Barrie + then you want to argue from your own misguided interpretations .
11. Like the void + the pulsating , + you can add to this ever growing list...(of) things which you do not believe are in the seth mat' ...you dingbat .
12. no Barrie it is your reading of the seth mat that is fruitless/ falacious + circular because you wont listen to anyone who tries nicely (as i have done) to put you right on such matters .
13. Your arrogant little ego wont let you grow Barrie + in fact you are blinded by it.
14. Our debates are only circular because you have never read any of the quotes i have given you + insist that your own intepretations are correct , you wally .
15. yes you were as much an arrogant fool then as you are now .
16. Not rely on Seth ? How foolish you are , as your own interpretations are so much more pathetic + innapropriate than Seths .
17. So here's the list of your faux pas barrie .
18. you eventually had to agree but without any comment on your wrong + misleading assumptions about me , v ungraceful Barrie + v immature .
19. So after all these occaisions you have been wrong about me , you still wont trust my opinions... you numbskull .
20. You are the great detractor + prevaricator...Definately not v sethian .
21. You have made a fool of yourself Barrie simply because you have not bothered
to read the quotes i have given you , how dippy is that + how rude to keep arguing a point when you have not even the barest foundations of knowledge , even when they are offered you as direct quotes from Seth .
22. You are a hypocrite because you argue (rather frantically) with Frank the pretender that he distorts the Seth mat' when that is exactly what you have been doing yourself with me , you dipstick .
23. so up yours too mr i think this is so fruitless + circular .
24. So now i am going to give you a complete + utter grilling old bean about your own innapropriate + way off missinterpretations + misconceptions of the material , so hold on to your vain ego as you will not be able to procrastinate your way out of this one.
25. when i 1st posted you about the void states , you told me that Seth had not ever mentioned such a thing as void , but you were wrong of course... you fool (by the way, Paul, your interpretation of what I actually said is wrong—I said to see if your meaning for the word "void" was found in the material—and not the word "void" found in the material).
26. What is it with you Barrie , is your ego so dominant that you can't admit when you are wrong ? Its no wonder you think so highly of your own wayward interpretations of the Seth mat' , because it feels soooo right to your massive ego .
27. Barrie has his own intepretations + barie is an old class member so Barrie must be right , yes a right prat actually .
28. I think you left the class sessions because you are an arrogant fool mate , find your own answers my ass , more like scared of any truths that Seth might have pointed out to you .
29. off with the kiddy gloves + fck you for being so rude + stupid enough not to have read the quotes i gave you .
30. I am right about this (+ other subjects you have rubbished me for) , not because i believe i am right or that it is my interpretation or beliefs , as you so arrogantly put it , but because i have read it + am repeating more or less exactly what i have read in the Seth mat' , you fool .
31. absolute bull' , you mean your ego has expanded . Your inner inspirational voice comes from the inner self + it is patently obvious that you are not an inner self Barrie , just an over inflated egotistical self .
32. no you ass, beliefs are NOT all we have to go on , we have the Seth mat' which you have brutalised by your interpretations + then delude yourself into believing are actually profound, deep and true meanings but are merely your own weak brew of assumptions about the Seth mat' because you have not read it properly nor understood what he said .
33. fck off with your nambypamby i believe this + you believe that + this is my interpretation + that is yours bull .
34. I talk only of the Seth mat' , + your superfluous beliefs about the pulsations are an example of how wayward you are + why i keep telling you to go back to the books rather than rely on your own feeble ego + its so v wrong assumptions/interpretations + beliefs + rather childlike suppositions of the Seth material .
35. And you teach this shyte to other people + pretend to be knowledgable !
36. You are not even half right about the pulsations , so that makes you as much a pretender as Frank who you villify for his own obvious self translations of the material , look in the mirror Barrie .
37. You are as bad as Frank the pretender whom you like to divest of his sethian delusions , you should divest yourself of your own delusions too Barrie or remain a hypocrite , as you choose .
38. the freakin whole point is that you are NOT meant to be reinterpreting the Seth mat' Barrie , but putting it across as it is , not how you think it should be . How do you think it was that Christianity , Buddhism etc got so fckd up , except by nincompoops like you putting their own crappy interpretations on the material .
39. Y do you think that Seth only came thru Jane , to stop asses like you + Frank from teaching a perverted form of Seth .

Barrie NOW Comments: I don't expect you to see what I am saying to you...you have your own beliefs which filter things in the way you need to filter them. But I have tried to be as objective as I could to show you what you do and sound like....

Barrie

barrie · June 19, 2016, 04:27:20 AM

Paul, you could not be more wrong concerning Seth and Seth class and the Seth material. Seth most certainly wanted us to find our own answers and not rely on him. One of his major messages was precisely that—to look within and not to him for the answers.

Paul Had Written: "Actually Barrie you need to stop telling me or anyone else that they ''should feel free to believe exactly as they wish--as you shall feel free to believe as you do'' because that is complete bull as far as the material is concerned .

"No one , not me or you should have their own beliefs or interpretatiions of the mat' , it is to stand as it is + not be pissed on by you or anyone . And as someone who is supposed to be knoledgeable , you should NOT be encouraging anyone to be happy with their own beliefs + interpretations of the mat' but putting them straight when they have got it wrong....

"Y DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATIONS OVER + ABOVE WHAT BOTH SETH + S2 HAVE SAID ? That is arrogant + entirely wrong of you...

...the freakin whole point is that you are NOT meant to be reinterpreting the Seth mat' Barrie , but putting it across as it is , not how you think it should be."

. I think you left the class sessions because you are an arrogant fool mate , find your own answers my ass , more like scared of any truths that Seth might have

Barrie NOW Responds: You are trying to create a gospel and a dogma concerning Seth's words which is precisely what Seth and Jane wished to avoid. Seth invited people to disagree with him and interpret the material as they wished and felt. Seth wanted people to look within for their own answers, and not look to him for answers. He has said that no one needs a Seth, all you need is yourself. And, by the way, everything is about beliefs on the physical plane—that is what creates the reality we see and what filters all of what we think we understand.

Here is some of Seth telling people in class, along with me, to find the answers within you and not to look to him for answers:

Seth (ESP Class, 5-30-72): "Now, I would like you to sense the energy that resides within your self and realize that the energy within you has the answers to your questions, and if you accept the answers, further questions will form. But if the answers are given to you out of hand, they will not necessarily lead you to new questions but to dead ends. And I do not believe in leading people to dead ends. Open doorways come when you look through yourselves, into yourselves, and through those selves to the selves beneath. And each answer leads you to a new question. And each question leads you to a new reality, but if you can forsake the question, you will get there quicker...

"I return you to the one authority always, and by my message I prevent you from using me as the authority, the one who knows all the answers. I return you to the authority that is the self, the self that is within each of you. And my role is to teach you to follow the inner roads that lead to the self, for no man's answers are the same as any others. And you must find your own inroads."
-----------------------

Seth (ESP Class, 10-17-72): "Is there a God or is there a being or a source behind all reality? You have the answers as well as anyone else does. You are as alive and aware as anyone else and the secrets of your being are also the secrets of being. You must look within yourself, then, for in the last analysis the beginning and the source of creativity in being resides in each individual consciousness. In the same way that each tree contains its own seed, so it is the seed of your own knowing that you must look for such answers. It is only because you tell yourself that you do not know, that the answers seem unavailable."

Seth (ESP Class, 11-7-72): Student Asks: "Seth, are the laws of nature a group of telepathic...")
Seth Answers: Now, we are involved in beliefs. You believe that I have the answers and you do not. You have the answers. They are within you.
You believe – this (pointing toward Cindy), the one with the glasses on the floor – that for a few moments something, some invisible world is made visible, and as our friend said, physical. Yet you are invisible, made physical and you speak far more often than I do – you are as ghostly as I.
You project upon me the knowledge that you yourselves possess. It is yours. Realize that it is. And that is my answer to you."

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

Seth (ESP Class, 12-12-72): "And your quandary, in a nutshell, is in your question – in your tendency to look to someone like me or to others for your own answers. And so, to give those answers to you is no help to you and simply reinforces something that is not working for your benefit. And a good teacher never reinforces that kind of belief.

"You do not need, in Ruburt's terms, to take acid. You do not need to find the answers from acid or from me – even when I am acidy.

"The answers are within yourself – you simply have not believed it. You have an ego because you are conscious. The ego is a responsive part of yourself. It is not a stupid relative to be shunted out of the way. And yet you look at it constantly and you say, "You stupid thing, you know nothing – out you go! Let my pure unconscious well up and give me the answers."

"And so your life operates according to your beliefs. And since you believe you do not have the answers, it does not seriously occur to you to listen to yourself. You listen to your animus or your anima or your shadow. But try listening to the self that you are in all your remarkable unity. And then the answers are and they are a part of you.

"And what I said to him applies to all of you – and, for heaven's sake, do not look so serious."

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

Seth (ESP Class, 3-6-73): "And I know that you know that you have access to any energy that you require and that the answers are within you!"

Seth (ESP Class, 2-13-73): "You have been told for so long that the answers are beyond you that many of you still refuse to realize that you have the answers. The questions that you ask have, couched within themselves, their own answers. That is why you ask the questions. Creation will always come from within and from that portion of All That Is that is within you."

Seth (ESP Class, 4-17-73): "As I told you before, in a manner of speaking, you are given the gifts of the gods. Your beliefs become reality. What you believe is and becomes real in your experience. There are no other answers. There is no area in your life to which this does not apply."

Seth (ESP Class, 4-24-73): "The answers are within you, as you all know and as I have said. But the answers cannot be spoken. Each of your questions are different. Each of your realities are different. So remember that basically answers cannot be put into words."

Seth (ESP Class, 5-1-73): "The Speakers speak in many ways – through cobwebs and flowers and toes! They speak through you. And when you are led beyond words, and when you understand thoroughly what I am trying to tell you, you will look inward to yourself with as much attention as you are giving me now, and you will find in that direction new questions that are your own stepping stones to other answers."

"And they are all diagrams that you make for yourself – frameworks through which you interpret your experience.

"For I tell you again (loudly and emphatically), that if you listened to yourselves with as much attention as you grant to me, then within yourselves would you sense and feel that energy that is your own and know that your own existence is the answer to your questions!"

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

Seth (ESP Class, 5-22-73): "All I can tell you, and I say it again and again, is that you each have your own consciousness and reality, and that is your path to all the answers that you seek, for you form your own questions as a tree forms its own leaves. And so certain kinds of questions will always lead you to certain kinds of leaves. And with that thought and realization – I hope, on your part, realization – I bid you good evening. But that portion of you that I have reached – that you have reached within yourselves – I hope will waken while you sleep. And if so, then follow it to yourselves and to the heart of your own being."

Seth (ESP Class, 6-12-73): "When you trust the vitality of your entire being, and the energy and the knowledge within yourself, then the way for you personally becomes apparent. If you truly believe that you could go to others for answers and that those answers were pertinent, you would not be here. You are here because you know that I will direct you back to yourself and to your own energy. So when I direct you back to yourself, do not brood and frown! It is what you want, and what you need, and what you have come for, and what you will find. The self that you know, that will be and is being revealed to you, and to each of you – not through dogma and not through rules, but through direct acquaintanceship with your own reality."

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

Seth (ESP Class, 6-26-73):    Your reality belongs to you. It is your right. It is one reality that you carry with you and create through the miraculous energy that is your self. Be your own interpreter. Interpret your reality as you wish. Do not be copy cats!! Do not try to make your reality like someone else's.

Seth (ESP Class, 7-31-73): "I have said and Ruburt has said, that you are gods couched in creaturehood. Couched – couched – supported. You are not gods dangling in creaturehood, you are not gods abandoned in creaturehood, you are gods couched in creaturehood.

"Many of your questions are beyond answers in the terms in which you ask them. But try forming questions for yourself in other than, in other than verbal terms. Now, you can do this. It will be quite an exercise for many of you but your feelings alone will form questions before you translate them into words. And left alone those feelings, those feeling questions will provide their own answers, and you will understand the answers at that level and later, and later, you may be able to verbalize them to some extent to make you happy!

Seth (ESP Class, 8-7-73): "When the book is out, and you can do the exercises for yourself that are within it, you should be able to find the answers. But it is also quite possible that you will find the answers before that time, without even needing the exercises. Tell yourself, for one thing, that you will know the answer, instead of that you cannot understand. Tell yourself that you can understand.

Seth (ESP Class, 9-4-73): "You find that your own beliefs seem very righteous and virtuous and good. And you act as you heard, because you are good and the other fellow is wrong. But he acts because he believes he is right and you are wrong. As long as you think in terms of black and white that will always be the case, and you will not see individual people. You will not react to the glorious integrity of any person, but to the ideas that you think the person stands for. You will look at a person and decide whether or not he agrees with your interpretation of reality. And so, the glorious reality of individuals will be lost in what you think of as your wisdom.

Seth (9-11-73): Again, I would tell you to ask yourself, and to accept whatever answer you get, for only in that way can you begin to trust your own integrity and your own answers.

Seth (9-18-73): Seth (ESP Class, 9-18-73): There is no question that you can ask to which you do not have an answer. Now if you believe that, each of you, then the answers to your own questions will be given to each of you. But you must believe that the answers are there, and that you can indeed receive them.

Seth (ESP Class, 9-25-73): "But when all your questions of truth are done, feel the vitality of your own being and know its source, and following its source will lead you to questions that you have not as yet the audacity or knowledge to ask. And those questions themselves, in your terms, are like magic carpets that sweep you in any moment into new answers and, of course, there is always someone like me to take the carpet out from under you. And you want that so that you can go ahead again and so that you are not satisfied with the old answers that have been given you, for they are tales. But so that you learn to follow the magic within yourselves to the answers that are there.

"Within your reality there are searches. The answers cannot be given in simple declarative sentences. And yet intuitively and creatively you can sense them, and in the dream state and in other states you can feel those answers, and they are more important than any sentence. You are the verbs. You are the realities. You are the truths. This does not mean that there are not other truths and other realities, but it does mean that you can trust yourselves and follow yourselves to what Ruburt calls the source selves in Aspects."

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

Seth (ESP Class, 9-25-73): "I bid you good evening. And realize that this class is but a pulpit that you are all using, and so each of you will have to interpret what I am saying in your own way...

"You are the verbs. You are the realities. You are the truths. This does not mean that there are not other truths and other realities, but it does mean that you can trust yourselves and follow yourselves to what Ruburt calls the source selves in Aspects...

"And again, if you understood what I meant – if you clearly for one second understood, and I hope you will – then you would follow the vitality of these sounds into your self and let them act as a springboard into the reality of yourselves that you know instinctively, as a squirrel knows its fine footing."

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

Seth (ESP Class, 11-13-73):    "What you want is a new catechism – a new catechism with the answers neatly stated, and the questions, of course, neatly stated. And when you come here and the answers are given to you, and I say, "Yes, you have this belief because of such and such," and "Historically it appears in such and such a condition," and some part of you still wants the authority outside of yourself to give you the answers, and therefore deny you the glory of your own experience. How dull that would be, and what zest it would take from your mental reality!

"If you really thought that all of the answers were here, and that I would give them to you, or could, you would probably all die tomorrow!

"In this reality, when will you learn that the answers and the questions are within yourself, and that the chase is within yourself, and the zest. And what kind of a teacher would I be if I gave you children's answers to children's questions? And that does not mean that I am putting children down.

I am a stimuli. I am a Pied Piper. I lead you on your own merry chase. I lead you into the fascination and excitement of your own existence, and so I do not fall into your pitfalls, nor do you want me to...

I am your own Pied Piper. I am the part of you that goes beyond yourself – the part of you that is not fooled by the questions that you ask yourself. I am your selves in other dimensions and also hidden within this one. You are selves that I have known, your own selves, and those selves demand to ask their own questions and find their own answers and would not stand, despite their moments of weakness, for the answers. For you understand, each of you, that your questions are stepping stones, and that answers are stepping stones, hidden one within the other, and that you are your own questions and your own answers. And you are here because you understand the vitality of your own being and because you accept it, and because you would not have anyone, including me, put you down.

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

Seth (ESP Class, 12-18-73): Excellence means that you take advantage of your abilities and do not deny them, and that you expect things of yourself and do not look upon others for their answers; that you do not dribble away your energy. It means that you know your own footing and do not lean upon another and do not accept shifting grounds, but admit your own integrity.

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

Barrie Comments: This is what I speak of when I speak of having an expanded ego:

Seth (2-6-73 ESP Class): "But, while you think that the ego is a step-child of the self--while you think of it as an outsider who must be swept aside so that this great energy and knowledge can flow through--then you set up a situation of opposites that need not apply--for the ego can learn far more than you give it credit for--and it can assimilate that kind of experience when the individual realizes that he is able to. There is no need for what you think of as the ego to be swept aside and annihilated, even in a symbolic death...

"Now, the ego is a living portion of the entire self--and when, in your terms, you annihilate it for whatever reasons, symbolically or otherwise--for that time and to that degree, you are annihilating a portion of the entire self. The ego is not a growth, like a cancer, on top of the inner self to be shot off or to take potshots at or to be removed. It is a living psychological portion of your being, as real, for example, in physical terms, as an appendix--all a part of your being--but it is not a thing, as your appendix may be thought of. It is a living, psychological structure that is a part of you--and if you think of the entire self, for example, and this is not a particularly good analogy, as a circle--and think of the physical reality up here—are you following me?--So then you think of the ego as up here at the top of the circle looking outward at physical reality--but following this analogy, the self turns. As it turns, other portions of the self appear as ego--and you can shoot down a thousand egos and they will come to the surface again--because they grow automatically and beautifully and spontaneously from the depths of your being.

"So you re shooting down, in those terms, paper dragons...What I would like to see is someone carrying on the work that was only begun by Maslow. Study people who have such experiences on their own as a natural state of their being--without drugs, without techniques, without rules, without regulations, but rather as a natural manifestation of their consciousness. Ask them how they have these experiences. Ask them where their ego is or is not at such times. You will find that the ego, or what you think of it, as the term is unfortunate because it means so many things to so many people...

"But you will find that your 'I' consciousness then expands itself to contain such experiences of the universe--and it is not annihilated within the experience. Instead, it expands to contain it until it contains so much that it has to learn again what it is and assimilate all of its many parts. It learns and grows and discovers. And within the experience, it is like a wandering child who looks out at a new universe, but knows itself as a part of that universe. Now, that is what I would like to see done."

Barrie

Deb · June 24, 2016, 11:24:41 AM

Quote from: voidypaulWe send immeasurable vitality to you, and support all of those structures of consciousness with which you are familiar. You are never alone. (Pause.) We have always sent emissaries to you who understand your needs. Though you do not know us, we cherish you.

These S2 quotes really touched me, take my breath away. They speak of infinite, pure love, of being valued and cherished. Maybe this is the feeling people experience when they have a near death experience? Most come back to this existence talking about such an overwhelming sense of unconditional love when they die that they have to literally force themselves to return to this existence. They long for the day they can return to that place.

Does anyone know if there's a recording somewhere of Jane speaking as S2? I do have access to most of the audio recordings, if by chance there's something on them. I'd just like to hear the difference with my own ears.

Quote from: voidypaul'' I who am the source , sent a portion of myself , an independent portion , to you.................etc ''
+ from sess' 409 , pg 276

Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the scenario of Jesus, the "son" of God, being sent to us, a portion of God being sent to us by himself? I could let that association disturb me, the parallel there, depending on from which direction I view that seemingly coincidental concept.

barrie · June 26, 2016, 09:26:53 PM

Quote from: Deb'' I who am the source , sent a portion of myself , an independent portion , to you.................etc ''
+ from sess' 409 , pg 276

Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the scenario of Jesus, the "son" of God, being sent to us, a portion of God being sent to us by himself? I could let that association disturb me, the parallel there, depending on from which direction I view that seemingly coincidental concept.

Barrie Responds: It is really nothing at all like Jesus, the son of God, being sent to us. There is no prostelitizing, the punishment in any way, no threats or need to follow or else you are damned or in trouble, no dogma. Perhaps it is the kernal of truth behind the Jesus metaphor. But besides that, there are no true comparisons. The "I" here is not a person as God is often believed to be. There is no person walking about who is the Son of God who is "higher" than us or existing at all. In this Seth concept, there is no hierarchy and we are all equally a part of All that Is, or God, as is a piece of shit or anything else--All That Is includes all that is. There is no morality here. This is more like a background process as to how the universe came about and nonphysical beings trying to help or guide us-- as opposed to a religion with dogma, rules, punishment, and so forth. There is no us versus them; no cult. You may be projecting Christianity and its dogma and morality onto this quote--but it is not actually in the quote or the concept.

Supposedly, the Bible suggests not to kill. Well, so does Seth in his concepts...but this, too, doesn't pigeonhole the material as being in some sort of Christian cult or bag.

voidypaul · June 28, 2016, 03:14:09 PM

Well Barrie , you got that wrong too .
Deb with her insightful intuitions is much closer to the truth than you with your dismal understanding of the Christ entiy or soul + the christian faith or dogma , which you somehow confuse one with the other .

It is the same or v similar with Seth + S2 as it is with the Christ soul + the living Christ except that Christ is a much more advanced being than Seth will be for a long time yet .
The Christ soul/entity is somewhat more advanced or closer to ATI than S2 is + so He can send a fragment/personality essence of Himself that is more aware of His contact with ATI than Seth himself ever was .

The ''I'' that Deb was talking about is S2 Barrie + so is beyond personality based existence altogether + only created Seth as we know him because he is a personality fragment so he can then translate what S2 has given him + put it into a form that we can then understand . You just don't seem to have a grasp of the deeper implications of the mat' yet Barrie .

Of course there is a hierarchy you fool , yes i totally agree that we are all equal in essence , fron an ant to a man to a tree or flower or shadow , but these things , like you + me barrie are not inner selves or entitys or souls so obviously there is a natural hierarchy that exists between all beings . You have not as yet understood the concept of qualitative/quantative difference that i gave you a while ago barrie , if you do then your responce here would be totally different .

The Christ would be so much more advanced than you could ever concieve of Barrie that His reality would amount to a difference of planetary proportions in comparrison to what you know or understand me old fruit , even Seth pays homage to the Christ + yet you seem to think that Seth is more than Christ you numbskull . Where do you get your ideas from Barrie , it can't be the Seth mat' or you would easily agree with what i have said , you just seem to make it up as you go along + slip up over your own banana skins .
Oh yes , its you that has projected your feeble ideas of Christ etc onto Debs topic , she was just speculating + you have projected your own assumptions me old dear , a completely diff' thing altogether .

Seths mat' is from S2 Barrie . Still don't understand that yet do you . Deb with her open mindedness is much closer to the truth than you are .

peace , paul

Deb · June 28, 2016, 06:51:32 PM

Quote from: barrieIt is really nothing at all like Jesus, the son of God, being sent to us. There is no prostelitizing, the punishment in any way, no threats or need to follow or else you are damned or in trouble, no dogma. Perhaps it is the kernal of truth behind the Jesus metaphor. But besides that, there are no true comparisons.

Yikes, maybe I need to clarify where I was going with my comment. I was just thinking I could interpret this statement ''I who am the source , sent a portion of myself , an independent portion , to you'' as possibly something Jane infused with her own religious background. But of course it's also the definition of our oversouls sending an essence of themselves (us) here, and the oversouls of oversouls...

Quote from: barrieYou may be projecting Christianity and its dogma and morality onto this quote--but it is not actually in the quote or the concept.

No, I was just hoping Jane wasn't. As perfect as Jane was for delivering Seth's teachings, I sometimes wonder if she'd injected (unconsciously) her own internal interpretations occasionally. And that is what would be disturbing for me because I want to believe in the purity of the Seth materials. On the other hand, I could look at the Christianity myth as "art imitating life," where every fable, legend, mythology has a seed/kernel of truth in it's origin. That's all I meant.

And I do have very strong feelings against organized religion; almost abnormally so if I were to listen to my friends' criticisms of me. But I feel Jesus was a real person who was more Seth-like in his teachings and was really against organized religion himself. It's time and Christianity that twisted what he was about. And the fact that nothing he said was written down during his time on the planet and that all of the gospels about him were written at least 100 years after his death. What is written in the bible about his teachings was completely distorted to serve the purposes of the writers, religious leaders, to control and manipulate. I could go on...

Along my path towards truth over the years I've read many books trying to explain what happened with the story of Jesus, the creation of Christianity, the omission of gospels that didn't fit the story being spun, the distortions, control, corruption, rationalization for stealing and killing... much more than I've read anything like a bible. I read them because I doubted myself, my own lack of interest in religion while others around me seemed to swallow it hook, line and sinker. I was also curious about this historical figure that still has a fanatical following, 2000 years after his existence. One of the more interesting books I read was produced by Atheists for Jesus (Christianity Betrayed), of all things.

But also my take on it is that all the threats, punishment, all you've listed, had nothing to do with Jesus the person and everything to do with the religion manufactured after him. His main messages were that the power is within us, we can heal ourselves, we should treat others with respect, that "god" per se is within us.

Quote from: barrieSupposedly, the Bible suggests not to kill. Well, so does Seth in his concepts...but this, too, doesn't pigeonhole the material as being in some sort of Christian cult or bag.

Wow, where did that come from?
But I promise I won't call you an old bean, lol.
Not even sure what that means.

Well, I hope I've made my comment clearer. I think I've worked it to death, at this point.

Oh, attaching a text exchange with a friend over us both having broken air conditioners. My texts are the ones in green, my friend's are in grey. It just seemed to be related to this post of my religious-ness-less vs. almost everyone else I know.

barrie · June 28, 2016, 09:43:15 PM

Quote from: DebAs perfect as Jane was for delivering Seth's teachings, I sometimes wonder if she'd injected (unconsciously) her own internal interpretations occasionally. And that is what would be disturbing for me because I want to believe in the purity of the Seth materials.

Barrie Responds: Seth did address this issue:

Seth (Session 47; CAPS originally underlined): "Truth contains no distortions, and this material with all my best efforts, and with yours (Rob & Jane), of necessity must contain distortions merely in order to make itself exist at all on your plane. I will never condone an attitude in which either you or Ruburt maintain that you hold undiluted truth through these sessions. Any material, to exist on your plane, MUST TO SOME EXTENT DONE THE ATTIRE of your plane, and in the very entry to your plane it must be somewhat distorted. I must use phrases with which your minds are somewhat familiar. I must use Ruburt's subconscious to some degree. If I did not take advantage of your own camouflage system, then YOU would not be able to understand the material at this time. Inner data, even this, MUST make its entry through some distortion. We must always work together, but you must never consider me as an INFALLIBLE source. THIS MATERIAL IS MORE VALID THAN ANY MATERIAL POSSIBLE ON YOUR PLANE, BUT IT IS NEVERTHELESS TO SOME DEGREE CONDITIONED BY THE CAMOUFLAGE ATTRIBUTES OF THE PLANE."

Seth (ESP Class, 9-11-73): "Let no one be disturbed at anyone who distorts my messages, for they are seeds that will be carried in the wind. Some will become apples and some peaches. They will be used as ideas should be used and not bowed down before. They will be dispersed as they should be, and their vitality used to seed the creativity of each person who received them. And each of you, in your own way, should and shall receive the message in your own way and use it as you wish in your own playful creativity."

Seth (Session 513): "Ruburt makes his verbal knowledge available for our use, and quite automatically the two of us together cause the various words that will be spoken. Distractions can occur, as any information can be distorted. We are used to working together now, however, AND THE DISTORTIONS ARE VERY FEW..."

Barrie Now Comments: Below is Session 513 excerpt in a little more of its content:

Seth (Session 513): "This concentration away from the physical system may make it appear as if her consciousness is blotted out. Instead, more is added to it. Now from my own field of reality I focus my attention toward the woman, but the words that she speaks - these words upon the pages - are not initially verbal at all.

"In the first place, language as you know it is a slow affair: letter by letter strung out to make a word, and words to make a sentence, the result of a linear thought pattern. Language, as you know it, is partially and grammatically the end product of your physical time sequences. You can only focus upon so many things at one time, and your language structure is not given to the communication of intricate, simultaneous experience.

"I am aware of a different kind of experience, not linear, and can focus upon and react to an infinite variety of simultaneous events. Ruburt could not express them, and so they must be leveled out into linear expression if they are to be communicated. This ability to perceive and react to unlimited simultaneous events is a basic characteristic of each whole self or entity. Therefore, I do not claim it as some feat that is exclusively my own.

"Each reader, being presently ensconced within a physical form, I presume (humorously), knows only a small portion of himself - as I mentioned earlier. The entity is the overall identity of which his personality is one manifestation - an independent and eternally valid portion.

"In these communications, therefore, Ruburt's consciousness expands, and yet focuses in a different dimension, a dimension between his reality and mine, a field relatively free of distraction. Here I impress certain concepts upon him, with his permission and assent. They are not neutral, in that all knowledge or information bears the stamp of the personality who holds it or passes it on.

"Ruburt makes his verbal knowledge available for our use, and quite automatically the two of us together cause the various words that will be spoken. Distractions can occur, as any information can be distorted. We are used to working together now, however, AND THE DISTORTIONS ARE VERY FEW..."

Sena · June 28, 2016, 11:37:27 PM

Quote from: DebBut I feel Jesus was a real person who was more Seth-like in his teachings and was really against organized religion himself.

What Jesus was trying to show with his miracles such as walking on water was that each of us can create our own reality because we are all a part of All That Is. Jesus encouraged Peter to walk on water, and Peter succeeded up to a point. I don't think Jesus expected anyone to worship him, but this has become the main theme of the Christian Church.
According to Seth, there are many things in the Gospels which were inserted by the proponents of organized religion. For instance, what Jesus is supposed to have said to Peter: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I build my Church".

barrie · June 29, 2016, 02:12:23 AM

Quote from: Sena
Quote from: DebBut I feel Jesus was a real person who was more Seth-like in his teachings and was really against organized religion himself.
What Jesus was trying to show with his miracles such as walking on water was that each of us can create our own reality because we are all a part of All That Is. Jesus encouraged Peter to walk on water, and Peter succeeded up to a point. I don't think Jesus expected anyone to worship him, but this has become the main theme of the Christian Church.
According to Seth, there are many things in the Gospels which were inserted by the proponents of organized religion. For instance, what Jesus is supposed to have said to Peter: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I build my Church".

Barrie Responds: As Jack Kerouac said, "Walking on water wasn't built in a day."

Deb · June 29, 2016, 07:41:24 PM

Quote from: barrieWe are used to working together now, however, AND THE DISTORTIONS ARE VERY FEW..."

Barrie thanks for all of the quotes, they've eased my mind a bit.

BTW, how do you have access to the quotes you put up, do you have all of the books typed up and stored in a huge database?

Deb · July 28, 2016, 04:36:00 PM

Going back to where I was headed with this (only because, once again, Ivan on Facebook came up with a quote that perfectly matched what was in my head):

Quote from: Debpossibly something Jane infused with her own religious background

"Ruburt's (Jane's) mind is an excellent one, and well given to serve our needs at this time. ...

Ruburt's intellect had to be of high quality. His conscious and unconscious mind had to be acquainted with certain ideas to begin with, in order for the complexity of this material to come through.

In the beginning, for example, there is always a distortion of material by the person who receives it, at least on the topmost subconscious level. So an individual whose personal prejudices are at a minimum is excellent.

If for example Ruburt's prejudices happen to lie along lines which do not contradict what I know to be true, then all the better, and there is much less resistance. ...

Material like this is sifted through many layers of subconscious conceptions, and is subsequently colored. People strongly believing in your organized religions color the material in a manner that is highly disadvantageous, and that unfortunately often adds to existing superstitions.

Ruburt's mind, believe it or not, is much like my own; though, if you'll forgive me, in a very limited fashion, therefore the distortions are much less distortive, much less harmful, and more easily discovered and cleared. ...

Others less perfectionist than myself are content with more distortion. I am not."

Seth (Jane Roberts) 'The Early Sessions', Book 1, Session 27

Of course @barrie previously supplied a great collection of quotes addressing my concern. For some reason I'm thinking someone had already put up this quote that I just added, but it didn't turn up on a Search. So forgive me if I'm becoming repetitive...

voidypaul · October 01, 2016, 11:28:22 PM

Hi folks ,
hope you are all in good health + happy.

I wanted to clear up some of the questions that arose about my initial posts on void.

One of the main questions i am asked is why would i or anyone find void a desirable or illuminating experience when there are infinite other worlds + experiences to explore .

We will have to go back to Seths explanation of the creation of the first planetary system that was created that hosted the first humans, wherein he states that before the creation of this system , first consciousness had to create the void .

A loaded statement indeed + unfortunately Seth added scant elaboration except that this void could be likened to an infinite mind , + which void came out of one that was greater than itself.

So what did he mean by this ? How can a void come out of one that was greater than itself, surely a void is a void is a void + what was this greater void + where did it come from ?

Obviously Seth is saying that this physical system (+ all systems) must have an initial void state before any manifestation can take place , + logically the first void had to have been created by ATI but Seth is a little sneaky about his terms + definitions here as he describes the first 'object' that ATI created was the unendurable mass with no weight . I think Seth did this deliberately so that folks could work out for themselves the connection between the unendurable mass + the void.

So , why do i claim this connection ? If again you think about it logically then the unend' mass , no weight , is an 'object' (Seths description) in the sense that it is the first 'thing' created but since its creation is before the manifestation of any sort of time or space then it is not an object in the sense that manifest beings (us) think of an object , Seths trickyness again .
This unend' mass (void) is created before time + space, in Seths terms because he then goes on to say that this unend' mass then exploded , starting all of the processes of creation which then of course does include time + space but more on a dreaming 'level' than a physical one .
So this unend' mass (void) exists prior to space/time + prior to any manifestation whatsoever. If one tries to contemplate the existence of an unend' mass/ no weight which does not exist in time or space then the penny drops to the conclusion that it is in fact a void + is the greater void that Seth alludes to when he said it came out of one greater than itself.

Seth has also described what he calls the undifferentiated area/level wherin con's takes its first step 'outside' of the system in which he has his manifestation + 'in to' an area where absolutely no objects or manifestations occur , even of thoughts + that this can initially appear to be an infinite + empty 'space'.He also says that this is in itself an illusion as the experience of an inf' empty space is just a first introduction into Void or undiff' level as the cons' cannot as yet cope with the initial shock of void + must in some way accommodate itself to the inf' reality of its non manifest state of being .

I think i should leave it here for the moment because it is such a confusing subject to most manifest beings (not just humans) + for now it is just an introduction into the vairious void states that do exist , one within the other but still i must point out that cons' or awareness even though it is unmanifest , even as thoughts , is still most definately present + in a way that is so intense that it would be impossible for a manifest being to experience without blowing a fuse .

So i will wait to see if anyone can fathom what it is i am talking about . Needless to say that it is a most satisfying experience because out of void states all + every manifest beings must come which includes the cons' units that Seth describes as the 'first' cons's to be relased from ATI's inf' subjective reality , so yes it is an ecstatic transcendent state , believe or not.

regards , paul

WindWalker · March 31, 2018, 01:53:32 PM

Its fascinating to witness two egos go head to head. Well done!

Deb · March 31, 2018, 07:02:01 PM

Quote from: WindWalker
Its fascinating to witness two egos go head to head. Well done!

You just cracked me up, brilliant! You nailed that one. BTW, welcome to the forum.

WindWalker · November 21, 2018, 06:14:59 PM

Hey yall!
I havent read this entire post but the gist is "what is the void state." I encourage the OP to explore astral projection because you can actually experience this state yourself. Im not sure what Seth has said about the "void" but in AP circles it is simply a black void where all creativity resides yet itself contains nothing. In AP when you experience the void, at first it is simply blackness where "astral vision" first appears and then after you experience pitch darkness you suddenly experience "3d blackness" where the darkness begins to turn 3d. Its not that you only "see" the darkness take on a 3d quality you actually feel it do so. It is difficult to explain because even thoughts seem to have a 3d effect. Maybe that is because it is a physically focused consciousness suddenly taking up residence in the void. Who knows! The void seems to be creativity unfolding from within itself by manifesting thought forms. At least in AP experiences. It is where all form and all realitys come into being, but again seems to contain "nothing", just blackness that turns 3d once consciousness enters the picture. . Many people in the AP community never get past the void. Once they "get out" and experience the void, they snap back to being physically focused and their experience is over. Sometimes, before hypnagogic imagery appears before sleep, you will notice a blackness that turns 3d before it is filled with imagery. Not sure if this would be considered the void or not because consciousness is still physically focused before hypnagogoc imagery appears. Anyway-just wanted to chime in to encourage the OP to research the void in astral projection literature. Latr!

Sena · February 18, 2021, 07:44:10 AM

Quote from: barrie
34. I talk only of the Seth mat' , + your superfluous beliefs about the pulsations are an example of how wayward you are + why i keep telling you to go back to the books rather than rely on your own feeble ego + its so v wrong assumptions/interpretations + beliefs + rather childlike suppositions of the Seth material .
35. And you teach this shyte to other people + pretend to be knowledgable !
36. You are not even half right about the pulsations , so that makes you as much a pretender as Frank who you villify for his own obvious self translations of the material , look in the mirror Barrie

I found this post when I searched the forum for "pulsations". The quote above is from Barrie, one of the original Seth students, so it is worth looking at again.(Barrie has in fact quoted the rather abusive statements of ex-member Paul, and he replies to Paul)

The basic point which Seth makes, as I understand it, is that the matter we see and touch in this world is neither "solid" nor unchanging. Particles of matter switch on and off like a flickering light bulb.

"All material is energy, appearing in the physical field into patterns that have been prepared for it. The illusion of rigidity is the result of your own outer senses, a perception which is too slow to catch the constant pulsations, as bits of energy that compose material constantly disappear entirely and are replaced. (Jane smiled and gestured.) There are as many intervals when your material world does not exist as there are intervals in which it does exist. For our present purposes we will call these intervals negative intervals. This particular idea is one that I have been most concerned with getting over, and I hope that I have laid the ground properly for it. When I use the word interval I am of course using it to make the idea understandable. The fact is, material on your field is composed of constant energy pulsations; and while to you the appearance is one of permanence to a fair degree, and while I have said that the pulsations are constant, nevertheless they are completely distinct, separate and new pulsations that are not continuous in the terms that you apply to one object that is continuous. Therefore, there is what I will call the negative interval, when one pulsation has vanished from your plane and another is about to take its place. Alone, each negative interval may be negligible, but taken en masse this adds up until there is as much negative matter as there is positive matter." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 2 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts, Session 61)

https://amzn.eu/0JK5ccD

This is Lynda Madden Dahl's interpretation:

"And with each creation, millions of times a second, the object changes, because action is change. In a camouflage reality with its root assumptions of time and space, very gradual change looks like development, or aging and wear. But a muscleman cannot grow muscles by working out through time, in a medium of space, because neither exists. And without time and space, there can be no motion. Seth said earlier when discussing the spacious present, there is no place to go, and the reason is because no motion can occur unless there is both time and space—and, again, neither exists." (from "Living a Safe Universe: A Book for Seth Readers" by Lynda Madden Dahl)

Deb · February 18, 2021, 04:43:17 PM

Quote from: Sena
Barrie has in fact quoted the rather abusive statements of ex-member Paul, and he replies to Paul

Yes that was in the early days of the forum. Barrie and Paul had followed each other from forum to forum for years, getting into the same arguments, and giving grief back to each other. My impression was they were enjoying it, like two old friends who like to badger each other. I recall there were times when Paul addressed Barrie as "old bean," which some took offense to. But per the web: "Old bean" is a classic British familiar form of address, roughly equivalent to an American's greeting of "buddy," "pal" "friend," or, at least lately, "dude." It doesn't actually mean anything, although to American ears it certainly sounds slightly odd." I've seen Barrie "get into it" with other people on Facebook and other forums, so I don't see him as too much of a victim. There are more than a few people who consider themselves the world's authority on Seth, and it can be like the clash of the titans some times.

When I finally asked Paul to tone things down a bit, since some people were becoming upset, he said... well never mind, he was not abusive towards me but he certainly has an ego and decided SoS was not the place for him.

Quote from: Seth
All material is energy, appearing in the physical field into patterns that have been prepared for it. The illusion of rigidity is the result of your own outer senses, a perception which is too slow to catch the constant pulsations, as bits of energy that compose material constantly disappear entirely and are replaced.

This to me is very key in understanding how our reality is made, and ties in really well with the quantum physics explanation of the constant flickering of particles in and out of our reality. I really enjoy Lynda's explanations of Seth concepts in more layperson terms—but I can't say it's easy for me to fully grasp (on a deep level) that there is no time or space when I see "evidence" of it every day... from my perspective in this reality.

Here's an interesting article on quantum foam. https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-01_NutshellReadmore.html

"At the quantum scale, space is a writhing, frantic, ever-changing foam, with particles popping into existence and disappearing in the wink of an eye. This is not just a theoretical idea—it's confirmed."

This is explained using an analogy to bubbles popping:

"At the quantum level, matter and antimatter particles are constantly popping into existence and popping back out, with an electron-positron pair here and a top quark-antiquark pair there. This behavior is the reason that scientists call these ephemeral particles "quantum foam": It's similar to how bubbles in foam form and then pop."

jbseth · February 18, 2021, 09:34:05 PM

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Wow. Just yesterday I was reading Seth Speaks, where he talks about death and the death experience. In this section of SS, he also talks about these pulsations.

In fact, I've noticed that in Seth Speaks, Seth talks about these "pulsations" in two different places. One place is in Chapter 9, "the Death Experience", S535. The other place is in the Appendix, ESP Class Session, Tuesday, January 5, 1971.

In both of these two sessions, however, he seems to refer to these pulsations in terms of "consciousness" flickering on and off.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

- jbseth

Sena · February 19, 2021, 03:26:59 AM

Quote from: jbseth
Consider this analogy. For one instant your consciousness is "alive," focused in physical reality. Now for the next instant it is focused somewhere else entirely, in a different system of reality. It is unalive, or "dead" to your way of thinking. The next instant it is "alive" again, focused in your reality, but you are not aware of the intervening instant of unaliveness. Your sense of continuity therefore is built up entirely on every other pulsation of consciousness. Is that clear to you?

jbseth, thanks for that quote. So it would appear that being "absent-minded" is a normal state of affairs. Seth's statements seem to imply that even in life we experience death, "a different system of reality".

jbseth · February 19, 2021, 10:58:41 AM

Quote from: Deb
This to me is very key in understanding how our reality is made, and ties in really well with the quantum physics explanation of the constant flickering of particles in and out of our reality. I really enjoy Lynda's explanations of Seth concepts in more layperson terms—but I can't say it's easy for me to fully grasp (on a deep level) that there is no time or space when I see "evidence" of it every day... from my perspective in this reality.

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Seth appears to use this "pulsations" idea, in several places in SS. In my copy of this book, in the index, on the topic of "time", it says that the "true nature of time" can be found on pages 235 and 236.

These are the last few pages of Session 567, which are the last few pages of Chapter 16, "Probable Systems, Men and Gods", Seth's chapter on probabilities.

In the first few paragraphs of this session, Seth talks about probable events and probable selves. Then he talks about time, and he does so in regards to these pulses. However, here, he doesn't just talk about the short duration pulses, but he also talks about long duration pulses.

Here's what he says about "time".

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

- jbseth

~Speaking of Seth~

News:

Seths 'undifferentiated level', Buddist 'jhana', + my 'void states'

BethAnne

voidypaul

voidypaul

barrie

voidypaul

voidypaul

barrie

barrie

Deb

barrie

voidypaul

Deb

barrie

Sena

barrie

Deb

Deb

voidypaul

WindWalker

Deb

WindWalker

Sena

Deb

jbseth

Sena

jbseth