void

[voidypaul]

    BethAnne ; I hope you continue this discussion.  Paul ; thank you my dear , i will .


        Dear Barrie ,  As i said in my last post here , the generalised dimension , vacuum + non existence are NOT to do with void + nonbeing .   I also sent you a post on your site signed off as mr contrite + starting as , this is an apology + stating as above .     Did you actually read these posts ? .

             So i hope we can leave the generalised dimension , vacuum + nonexistence out of the subject on void + nonbeing (which is what i want to concentrate on) + because in Seths terms these are areas in which con's has yet to express itself ie,   Seth Continues: "Before this the generalized dimension was simply nonexistent, a vacuum, which consciousness had not yet filled.  The initial void + the only nonbeing are creations of ATI '


             So out they go ( the gen' dim' , vacuum + non exis'), for the duration i hope .

             Another thing is , that the way that Seth uses the term undifferentiated has nothing to do with any dictionary definition on differentiation or differentiated . Again if you read the passages

     VOl 7 ; pg 48 sess' 287
              ; '' this is what happens when you ,,
                                                        i gave from Seth on the undifferentiated area in my last post here,  you will easily appreciate the difference + would have saved yourself a lot of time .

              I hope you understand that i mean the early sessions when i say vol 7 .

              I think it would be in both our interests if you did actually fully read my posts ,  it would save us both having to repeat ourselves .


              Now , to get to the meat on the bone .  Void + nonbeing .   You quite rightly quoted Seth


                ''The heavy hydrogen molecules had a large part to play in the birth of that system. Consciousness had first to create the VOID, or the dimension in which the system could exist, and also to endow that VOID with all the probabilities for development that have come about in your time, and are to come about.''

Now I will take it apart, so to spk

''Consciousness had first to create the VOID, or the dimension in which the system could exist''

This is exactly right, but what is a void/dimension ? + what is the state or condition of the consciousness (con's) prior to its unfolding as a void/dimen' ? ( + prior to its seeding with all of the prob's + poss's )

so initially + always there is con's. But this con's is in a state where no thoughts or images exist. a complete + utter formlessnes .


                   This is from my last post Barrie . But i will go on to say that i have left out the portion ,

           ''The heavy hydrogen molecules had a large part to play in the birth of that system.''   

                    because of course the void had first to be created before the heavy hydrogen molecules could come into existence + also before all of the poss' + prob's could be endowed to it .

                   So the void comes 1st , before anything else (except con's) + that this con's is in a state where no thoughts or images exist. a complete + utter formlesness .

                   The question may well arise , if con's is in a state of complete + utter formlesness from where did the poss' + prob' of con's come from ?  It might surprise or even horrify you to know or rather for me to say that they in some way they came out of that condition of nonbeing i speak of , but i will not elaborate at this point .

                   First i need to know that you understand that before any creation could take place , including the hydrogen molec's + the endowment of any poss' or prob' , first , the void had to be created .   

                   Is that understandable for you , it does not need to be accepted by you as long as you can at least understand this concept + that it in no way contradicts Seths statements .     

                    As i have stated elsewhere , this is to do with the greatest + most complete contraction of con's or as i have also put it , the journey home into the bussom or heart of ATI.   

                    It is of course the most fearful of contractions because it implies the leaving behind of all + any expansions of con's + to most this is anathema but this is simply because there is so much misunderstanding of this primal state of being , especially when one also implies nonbeing as  a part of the goal . Far too horrifying to most .     Nirvana as is understood by most westerners + indeed Buddists is an end in itself but this is not true , nonbeing is in the heart of ATI , + is to do with a new begining .

                   Seth ; "There is, and this will certainly seem a contradiction in terms, there is NON-BEING. (Pause. Jane lit a cigarette.) It is a state, not of NOTHINGNESS in your terms, but a state in which probabilities and possibilities are known, anticipat­ed, but blocked from all expression. Dimly, through what you would call a history; hardly remembered, there was such a state. It was a state of agony in which the powers of creativity and existence were known, but the ways to produce them were not known. This is the lesson that All That Is had to learn, and that could not be taught. This is the agony from which creativity originally was drawn, and its reflection is still seen."


                     This is the nonbeing i speak of Barrie , + what i mean partially by 'the journey home'. Can you understand this ?

                     I mean that a self can + will if it is able to , take this journey back to a 'condition' of it's source before it became manifest . This does not mean that it is nonexistent , it is as i have said before ,  in a state of 'suspension' + nonbeing .   It is in a state of nonbeing because all of its prob' + poss' have been suspended by ATI . If for a moment you can imagine what the state of no poss' or prob' is , then i'm quite sure you will come to the conclusion that this con's is unable to express itself in any way whatsoever , it would not be aware even of its existence , as all functions of perception are suspended . In a sense ATI put its creation into a deep + dreamless sleep .  It is what i have termed pure or total void state of con's.

                     I must remnd you Barrie that i have never used the term nothingness to describe this or any other state of con's . I have always used the terms void states of con's , not nothingness nor nonexistence .

                   
                     
                    My dear Mr Senafernando , of course most Buddists entirely missunderstand the true meaning of nirvana , not all but most , esp' as it has come down to us in our day + age , but i am certain this is not what the Buddha was saying which can be seen in the later translation of the mahaprinirvana as opposed to those of the SriLankan ilk .

                    BethAnne , if you have truly percieved the music of the spheres then you are a most privilaged woman , this is a divine state of being + truly wonderous to behold , good on ya darlin .

   
                    G'day to you Len , i had a friend in Amsterdam who went by that name so please excuse my assumption ,  i must have been stoned hahahahah . 
                    Yes , these states are truly beyond words but the experience is so much a part of my genetic + spiritual makeup that i feel that i must at least make a last great effort to make it in some way apprehendable or  understood by my peers before i leave this dimension (for the last time i hope) .

                    Yes it is true my friend that in reality there is only a great + divine subjectivity .

                   Seth did not mention much on void + nonbeing because he has himself not been 'outside' of this universal system  + Jane could not contain such concepts tho' she did so brilliantly well to surmount her inhibiting belief systems , which unfortunately for her kicked back hard + blocked her + waged war in her physical form , bless her , she tried so hard , she is my hero .

                   No Len i am not new to any of this , i have spent many lives on it

                   You said ''Now if I spend my time going back to the void, then I imagine the next step is toward the Source....then what?''   
                           If you truly went back to the source Len then you would not really want to come back here mate , when one experiences Source or ATI + the spacious present , the return is blindingly beautiful but i assure you , one would rather be 'there' than here .

                           You also said ''Why do I need to visit the void to learn how to live in the moment?

                           Because on the other side of the void (so to spk) is the spacious present .

                        Also ''But I could quite possibly be wrong. Perhaps you're a trailblazer Paul. You might be the one to teach us new things regarding the entire subject. Perhaps that's why you're not finding what you're looking for in most of the Seth communities, or elsewhere. If you feel like shaking it up, then shake it up. You won't be vilified by me. Questioned perhaps, but that's what we are here for. So please keep sharing, and we'll try to not hijack the thread (too often)...lol''

                     Thank you for the possible compliment me old fruit , i have yet to meet anyone who can truly keep uo with me on this subject but in fact that makes me feel quite lonely at times . I have even been abused + barred from some Buddist sites so i deeply appreciate your open minded + questioning nature , i hope you never loose it , it is a boon to any con's + i highly respect it in anyone .

                     Well i,m done for the night , i rarely sleep but i need to reinvigorate myself from time to time + at 3 am , it is my time .

                     See y'all soon , peace , paul .

[John Sorensen]

You won't be barred or ridiculed for inquiring into things (or non things) on this site.
I recommend writing down more of your ideas and experiences and not getting lost in terminology.
I chose not to post any more in the other thread because I had nothing further to add.

If you had to sum up your questions and ideas on this topic in around three simple sentences, what would they be?

Never stop exploring or questioning.

Pure potential is present in every version of reality.
A return of any kind in any state is not return or regression, but an expansion of all that is, a constant evolution and expansion of probabilities. All that is - is not finished nor will it ever be, and neither will you cease becoming any more than a tree will decide not to produce more trees.
And I may be 100% wrong.

[barrie]

Paul, allow me to focus on your key points:

  Paul Writes:  Now , to get to the meat on the bone .  Void + nonbeing .   You quite rightly quoted Seth
   Seth Said:  ''The heavy hydrogen molecules had a large part to play in the birth of that system. Consciousness had first to create the VOID, or the dimension in which the system could exist, and also to endow that VOID with all the probabilities for development that have come about in your time, and are to come about.''
 
Barrie Responds: As you know, the void does not exist without consciousness. Consciousness CREATES the void. To use an analogy: A person creates a balloon, and then blows it up. But these balloons are not just existing somewhere unused and we want to get back to the storage room or the empty storage room.
 
Paul Writes: Now I will take it apart, so to spk
 
Seth: ''Consciousness had first to create the VOID, or the dimension in which the system could exist''

Paul Comments on the Above Seth Sentence: This is exactly right, but what is a void/dimension ? + what is the state or condition of the consciousness (con's) prior to its unfolding as a void/dimen' ? ( + prior to its seeding with all of the prob's + poss's )
 
Barrie Responds: Here is one of the places that we disagree. As I see and believe it, consciousness is not "unfolding as a void/dimension." It is creating it. When a person pees, he is not unfolding as urine...he is creating the urine, so to speak. A person is not unfolding into a balloon is is making—he is creating the balloon so he then has a place to puff his air into.
 
Paul Continues:  so initially + always there is con's. But this con's is in a state where no thoughts or images exist. a complete + utter formlessnes .
 
Barrie Responds: This I totally disagree with and I also don't believe it is found in the Seth material. I believe that Consciousness has thoughts and images and imagined forms—but all nonphysical. It wanted a PHYSICAL playground. A way to physicalize its thoughts, etc. When Seth speaks of his version of the big bang, he speaks of an agony felt by ATI—that wanted further expression of itself. And in order to pour forth itself into physical form, it had to create the place to put the physical things, like the universe.
 
In order to want to create and then endow the void—consciousness had to have thoughts, emotions, imagination of forms, and on and on.
 
  <skip>
 
  Paul Writes: So the void comes 1st , before anything else (except con's) + that this con's is in a state where no thoughts or images exist. a complete + utter formlesness .
 
Barrie Comments: This is where we totally disagree. You are free to believe it...but I not only don't agree, but I believe it is not found in the Seth material either. I believe you are endowing the Seth material with some sort of Buddhist slant that you believe in.
 
By the way, what is the difference in your mind between nothingness and what is in the void before it is endowed, so to speak?
 
Paul Writes: The question may well arise , if con's is in a state of complete + utter formlesness from where did the poss' + prob' of con's come from ?  It might surprise or even horrify you to know or rather for me to say that they in some way they came out of that condition of nonbeing i speak of , but i will not elaborate at this point .
 
Barrie Responds: OK, well wait until later.
 
  Paul Writes: First i need to know that you understand that before any creation could take place , including the hydrogen molec's + the endowment of any poss' or prob' , first , the void had to be created .
 
Barrie Responds: Yes—that is clear and obvious. But in your mind, based on your beliefs, how can the void be thought up and then created if consciousness has no thought nor images? 
 
Paul Continues: Is that understandable for you , it does not need to be accepted by you as long as you can at least understand this concept + that it in no way contradicts Seths statements .     
 
Barrie comments: IF you are talking about the void being created first, then it is understandable. It does not contradict Seth's statement. But your INTERPRETATIONS of Seth's statement may contradict Seth's statement.
 
Paul Continues:  As i have stated elsewhere , this is to do with the greatest + most complete contraction of con's or as i have also put it , the journey home into the bussom or heart of ATI.   
 
Barrie Responds: As I see and believe it, we are in the bosom and heart of ATI right now. In fact, we ARE the bussom and heart of ATI. ATI is All That Is. A nail on a windowsill is a part of ATI, a piece of cat shit in the kitty litter box, a flower, a mountain top, a galaxy, a universe, a button on a coat, etc etc etc. EACH ONE separately and/or ALL TOGETHER—ARE THE HEART AND BUSSOM OF ATI.
 
So, I just totally disagree with, at least, my understandings of your interpretations and beliefs. It is not that I don't understand them. I do not agree with them. And I do not agree, for what it's worth, that it is found in the Seth material either. Sometimes the words are found, but I believe that you give those words interpretations that, if you look elsewhere, are not found or supported in the Seth material. This would call for looking at various comments Seth made about ATI—none of which imply anything close to what you are now saying here, according to my beliefs.

Paul Continues:  It is of course the most fearful of contractions because it implies the leaving behind of all + any expansions of con's + to most this is anathema but this is simply because there is so much misunderstanding of this primal state of being , especially when one also implies nonbeing as  a part of the goal . Far too horrifying to most . 
 
Barrie Responds: You seem to believe that whatever you believe is somehow the actual deep truth. To put it another way, you may be the one with misunderstandings of this primal state of being. To put it another way, others may disagree with your beliefs about the primal state of being. I certainly disagree with it fully. Perhaps the misunderstanding resides in you and not others? Is this possible at least?
 
I don't believe that a journey of contraction is the heart of ATI. At best, there was not even a state of bliss, tbut rather a state of agony. They joy came in creating, as it comes now for each one of us. Likewise, I don't believe the magical heart of being a human, is to contract and go back to the zygote state. We are each as pure now as ATI is and ever was or will be—which is all happening at once anyway as time is not linear.
 
Paul Writes: Nirvana as is understood by most westerners + indeed Buddists is an end in itself but this is not true , nonbeing is in the heart of ATI , + is to do with a new begining .
 
Barrie Responds: I fully disagree. Fully. Totally. As I said, I believe everything is the heart of ATI and nonbeing, as you speak of it, doesn't exist. We are already THERE. We are each and every one of the ongoing heart of ATI right now. You are creating your version of Heaven or Nirvana—some sort of "end" state that doesn't exist because there is no end. There is nothing to go back to. The universe is being created each moment right now by all of us.
 
Seth Said: "There is, and this will certainly seem a contradiction in terms, there is NON-BEING. (Pause. Jane lit a cigarette.) It is a state, not of NOTHINGNESS in your terms, but a state in which probabilities and possibilities are known, anticipat­ed, but blocked from all expression. Dimly, through what you would call a history; hardly remembered, there was such a state. It was a state of agony in which the powers of creativity and existence were known, but the ways to produce them were not known. This is the lesson that All That Is had to learn, and that could not be taught. This is the agony from which creativity originally was drawn, and its reflection is still seen."
 
Paul Comments: This is the nonbeing i speak of Barrie , + what i mean partially by 'the journey home'. Can you understand this ?
 
Barrie Responds: We are already home. Can you understand this? We never left anything or anyplace. There is no magical metaphorical inner Garden of Eden to which to return. We are a part of ATI. We are the heart of ATI. There is no place to return to because we are already there. My arm doesn't have to return to my body when I think about my feet.
 
Let's review the quote: 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 Writes: I mean that a self can + will if it is able to , take this journey back to a 'condition' of it's source before it became manifest .
 
Barrie Comments: Again, I disagree. And why would you even want to take that journey, if it could be taken? That was a condition of AGONY. We ARE the source. There is no "place" or whatever you wish to call it to go back to. No Heaven. No Nirvana, No Garden. There is the Heaven of Now; the Nirvana of Now; the Garden of Now.
 
The universe is being created anew each moment, and we are a part of it, and a part of doing the creating. There is no magical moment or whatever you wish to call it to go back to. There is no linear time.
 
Now, YOU may want to go back there etc but why project that as a desire or goal for others. I don't believe a self WILL want to take that journey if it is able to. That is your desire, tho, and good luck with it.
 
Let me try to clarify my position: ATI had thoughts, feelings, emotions and needed a receptacle within which to physicalize them. It needed the balloon in which to puff up with air, to use that metaphor. And so it made the balloon and then puffed it up with air. And this is all happening right now right here in our living rooms each moment. We are not separated from ATI in the manner your theory suggests. We are a part of ATI. We are ATI. If ATI was a blob of silly putty, we would be inside that blob, stretching that silly putty out from within, all over the place, but never breaking our connection to it or with it. And right now, each instant, we are creating the universe anew—creating the void in which to plop in physical reality. We are doing it and we ARE it. And it is happening over & over again—right now.
 
Paul Continues: This does not mean that it is nonexistent , it is as i have said before ,  in a state of 'suspension' + nonbeing
 
Barrie Reesponds: Again, I disagree with you. There is no long lost state of suspension that is the heart of ATI to which we long to return if we could—we are already there.
 
Paul Continues: It is in a state of nonbeing because all of its prob' + poss' have been suspended by ATI .
 
Barrie Responds: This state of nonbeing is something we use each instant right now. We never left it, so to speak.
 
Paul Continues: If for a moment you can imagine what the state of no poss' or prob' is , then i'm quite sure you will come to the conclusion that this con's is unable to express itself in any way whatsoever , it would not be aware even of its existence , as all functions of perception are suspended .
 
Barrie Responds: No, I disagree fully. Those are YOUR beliefs; not mine. I can imagine the state of no probababilities or possibilities as much as you are anyone. These are very subjective areas of belief that don't flow easily from one person to another, and may not match—but that lack of matching doesn't make one person's imagination wrong and the person's imagination correct.
 
That said, I disagree with you. This consciousness CAN express itself and did express itself. It eventually wanted more than what it had and was, so to speak. It wanted physical expression and it KNEW what it wanted and how to go about creating it. And it certainly knew what IT was that wanted it. This is how I see it.
 
I believe we feel this state all the time when we want or desire to say something but can't find a way to get it, do it or achieve it. This is on a microcosmic level, but the "agony" is connected to the same agony. As I see it, you are turning the concept of ATI into some sort of magical lost God Place that we have left...I guess that's like the Garden of Eden, in metaphorical terms. I believe we never left the garden. It is still and has always been within us.
 
Paul Continues: In a sense ATI put its creation into a deep + dreamless sleep .  It is what i have termed pure or total void state of con's.
 
Barrie Responds: Those are certainly your terms which find no place in my heart or beliefs. But you should enjoy them once you get past the agony. And in my terms, then, this is something I certainly disagree with. There is no deep and dreamless sleep; and no void state of consciousness, as I see it.
 
Consciousness CREATED the void.
But it was not IN a void state of consciousness;
nor was it a void state of Consciousness.
A void state of consciousness
could not create the void.

That's how I see it.
 
 

[barrie]

Paul Writes: Seth did not mention much on void + nonbeing because he has himself not been 'outside' of this universal system  + Jane could not contain such concepts tho' she did so brilliantly well to surmount her inhibiting belief systems , which unfortunately for her kicked back hard + blocked her + waged war in her physical form , bless her , she tried so hard , she is my hero .

Barrie Responds: As i see it, seth didn't write much about the void as YOU believe it to be because he doesn't believe in it because it doesn't exist as you believe it does.

How would YOU define this "universal system?" And...are you also now saying that Seth has not been outside this "universal system" but you have? And what makes you think that Seth hasn't been beyond this universal system, however it is you define it? And what have you read about Seth2?

Paul Writes: on the other side of the void (so to spk) is the spacious present .

Barrie Responds: I disagree fully. We are IN the spacieous present right now all of us, ALL THE TIME. It is impossible not to be in it. As we blink in and out of this physical state each instant, we blink "into" the spacious present. When we dream we also go into the spaceious present. When we telepathically communicate with each other and all people from all times; when we "visit" or explore probable realities; go into creative trance-like states.

One of the eight root assumptions of F2 is that "the spacious present is here more available to the perceptions (Seth Session 284).

In Session 45, Seth also says that when we are hypnotized we enter the spacious present.

Seth (Private Session, 10-24-77, God of Jane) Framework 2 contains all the dreams, plans, and thoughts of all human beings of any time. There, the spacious present is operative. There, it makes no difference if an undesirable condition has lasted a day or a lifetime. There, you are not impeded by the past.


Barrie Now Comments: So, as I see it, the point that we somehow need to return to the void to get to the spacious present, etc, is actually absurd when it comes to the Seth material. Of course, you are free to believe as you wish. Perhaps you would like to elaborate? I also believe that you find so many people not "understanding you" on our cyber journies because they don't believe what you say or agree with you...and YOU interpret that as not understanding you. It so happens that what you say may sometimes actually makes little sense when looked at seriously thru the lens of the Seth maerial. Or perhaps, it is just that everyone, including Seth and Jane, don't understand the "depths" of your comments.

[John Sorensen]

You won't be barred or ridiculed for inquiring into things (or non things) on this site.
I recommend writing down more of your ideas and experiences and not getting lost in terminology.
I chose not to post any more in the other thread because I had nothing further to add.

If you had to sum up your questions and ideas on this topic in around three simple sentences, what would they be?

Never stop exploring or questioning.

Pure potential is present in every version of reality.
A return of any kind in any state is not return or regression, but an expansion of all that is, a constant evolution and expansion of probabilities. All that is - is not finished nor will it ever be, and neither will you cease becoming any more than a tree will decide not to produce more trees.
And I may be 100% wrong.

I normally don't quote myself, but the other posts are quite long so the context will be lost.
But to add to my above comments:


The Seth Material is not just a bunch of dusty books, but an alternative framework, or way of being. To my way of thinking it is like a gentle rehabilitation of man's psyche away from extreme materialism and back towards its natural more balanced state. It is a framework, that like Yoga or Buddhism, develops with direct 1st person experience through mental/psychic exercises experience rather the being dependent on "faith" or "belief".

The Seth Framework you could also call interactive, and it is still growing with the people who participate in it. It is not a fixed set of beliefs to buy into.
It is an open ended system that encourages "users" to adapt it to their own uses, and expand upon it however they see fit.

Seth is not a guru, and his words are not infallible, and nothing in any of his books or sessions is to be taken as scripture or interpreted in a fundamentalist rigid way.

The Seth Framework is only a starting point and continues to change and evolve as more users apply it in their own lives.

[barrie]

 
Hi Everyone,

In case anyone is interested, I would like to address my beliefs about Seth being either godlike--or his words being taken as Gospel--or Seth being some sort of guru: I don't feel those ways at all. I shall explain why, re-posting what I have said before:

Barrie (6-23-2003):
As you may know, I attended Seth class. I saw Seth speak thru Jane. That does NOT deify Seth & his words in my mind--it HUMANIZES Seth & his words. I never thought of Seth as a God when he sat in the chair & talked.

If anyone knows the humanness of Seth/Jane--it is someone who attended class.
Maybe reading his words a person can drift into deification, but you can't
unpickle a cubumber. Once you see Seth/Jane speak, you cannot think of
Seth/Jane as a God or as speaking gospel.

Seth himself said, "Seth Speaks" could have been called "You Speak and You Speak and You
Speak and You Speak." And, Seth has often said, that the vitality and energy
of his voice is but a dim echo of the vitality & energy of our own selves &
voices. And, when you ask a question it means that you already have the answers
somewhere inside you--so go find it.

So, Seth doesn't try to pass himself off as a guru, god or anything like it.
After about a year--I CHOSE to leave Seth class before the classes ended--because the message I ultimately kept hearing Seth say was to look for the answers yourselves--DON'T look to Seth; that when Seth answers your questions, you get only half the answer, but you think you are getting the whole answer--and so you stop
looking.

All of the above messages I kept getting in class translated into getting the
same overall message class after class--"Find The Answers To Your Questions
On Your Own..."

And that is why I stopped going to class--so I could do just that: To find the answers myself--which I have been doing not only AFTER I left class--but BEFORE I ever heard of Seth.

I chose, I volunteered to NOT see Seth; to NOT ask Seth questions; etc etc.
Why? Because I knew I had the answers within me--and they would only have true
value to me--if I discovered them on my own. And I knew if I continued going
to class I would continue not fully using my self to discover the answers I
sought.

And thru-out my whole class experience--I never saw Seth as a "superior" to
me in any way--let alone a God or speaker of the Gospel. Perhaps solely reading
his words you can somehow mistake them for "gospel" but NOT when you
experience watching Seth speak thru Jane--watching Jane come out of--listening
to Jane speak on her own, etc. Nothing makes Seth more human and more peer-like than
having him sit there and join in a conversation...or directly answer your
questions put to him. And, on top of all that, I never even thought of myself
as a student. I never even understood the use of the term "class."

Also, just to clarify, when I use Seth quotes--it is AFTER I have come up with my answers--and then
I see what Seth directly had to say on the subject. IT IS NOT THE OTHER WAY
AROUND. 

Be well,
Barrie

PS: And if anyone has any comments or questions, please ask.

[John Sorensen]

Thanks for your post Barry. 

I never got the humor or lightness of tone Seth uses until listening to some class audio recordings. Before that some of the stuff in books did come across as serious, now I re-read them and see how many things he was joking about, or emphasizing in a silly way - like being super serious - to make fun of that fundamentalist sort of view of the world, and encourage people not to take anything the says in that sort of way.

[Deb]

The Seth Material is not just a bunch of dusty books, but an alternative framework, or way of being. To my way of thinking it is like a gentle rehabilitation of man's psyche away from extreme materialism and back towards its natural more balanced state.

John, you nailed that 100%. That's exactly what I get from the materials, guidance back to balance. Thanks for distilling that down to its essence.

I never got the humor or lightness of tone Seth uses until listening to some class audio recordings.

Another great topic that I have plans to start—examples of Seth's sense of humor. I started making notes somewhere, I need to find them and get to work. Thanks for the reminder!

[Deb]

In case anyone is interested, I would like to address my beliefs about Seth being either godlike--or his words being taken as Gospel--or Seth being some sort of guru: I don't feel those ways at all. I shall explain why

Seth himself said, "Seth Speaks" could have been called "You Speak and You Speak and You
Speak and You Speak." And, Seth has often said, that the vitality and energy
of his voice is but a dim echo of the vitality & energy of our own selves &
voices. And, when you ask a question it means that you already have the answers
somewhere inside you--so go find it.

Barrie, this is a great subject and I've always felt good about Seth's constant reminders that he and no one else should be treated as gurus. I really think this deserves a topic of its own and would be glad to split it off to a new topic if you'd like.

PS: And if anyone has any comments or questions, please ask.

I do have some questions about your experiences during your year attending the classes, it's such a pleasure having you visit the forum. I think you're the only person that anyone can ask at this point (being reachable) what it was really like being there in person. I'm sure you could write a book about it.

[voidypaul]

   Hi Barrie , John + Deb ,
                                         hope you are all in good health + happy .

                                   I will not be replying to your posts just yet Barrie as I want to do you the service of going thru as much of the Seth material as I can in order to give you some 1st hand quotes + references etc  .           As much as we spar + joust with each other Barrie , I want to make it plain + clear that I hugely respect the time + effort you have put into your posts  + that I like + admire your obvious conscientiousness + down right hard work . Please never think that I take you or your comments lightly or with a pinch of salt as I like to say , nothing could be farther from the truth . So as I say I will get back to you shortly with quotes etc .

           with great respect , + of course ,  peace  , paul



Hi John ,
             I thoroughly enjoyed your last posts . Are these your own quotes + observations ?  Whatever source they are , they are well said + even eloquent + you have my admiration for turning yourself around from the more aggressive previous post . Nice one mate .

                       peace , paul

[BethAnne]

I just heard this quote...

"There are many paths to the Top of the Mountain, but the View is all the same."

[Sena]

barrie,
you wrote:

As you may know, I attended Seth class. I saw Seth speak thru Jane. That does NOT deify Seth & his words in my mind--it HUMANIZES Seth & his words. I never thought of Seth as a God when he sat in the chair & talked.

If anyone knows the humanness of Seth/Jane--it is someone who attended class.
Maybe reading his words a person can drift into deification, but you can't
unpickle a cubumber. Once you see Seth/Jane speak, you cannot think of
Seth/Jane as a God or as speaking gospel.

Does that mean that any so-called god is actually human-like, and that there is no God who lords it over "his" Creation? In Seth's words, "All That Is" does not seem to imply an Almighty God.

[BethAnne]

that there is no God who lords it over "his" Creation? In Seth's words,

It is my experience.....and the reason they put me on drugs as a kid.....was that the DIVINE was experienced as extremely abstract math that hums with a vibration that balances discord.  We, however, have the freewill to listen or plug our ears.

Experiencing this State of Being was terrifying not because it was a Void but because it was extremely abstract.  To accommodate I had to  become abstract which was beyond Ego Recognition and it took over 50 years to feel comfortable with it.

[Sena]

BethAnne, that is an interesting experience you describe.

[BethAnne]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'  John 1:1

[Sena]

Sacred quantum physics(because that is mainly mathematical)? As Seth wrote in NOPR, the cat is dead and also not dead.

[BethAnne]