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

[voidypaul]

    Hi ,
       there are a few issues i would like to get

ironed out in a sethian context as i have a great

deal of respect for the Seth material + indeed think

it the best available .


      Unfortunately Seths creation account is short +
not v detailed , + also his knowledge + perhaps

experience 
of what i call void states + Bud's call jhana  ,
is a little lacking.

      With the incredible knowledge at his

fingertips, i used to wonder y he did not espouse a

little bit more the mystical nature of several other

groups in history ie, jhana , or even offer a map of

his own , ie what would Seths jhana look like ?

       I sometimes wonder wether Seth himself

actually took a 'trip' outside of the material univ'
+ into the undifferentiated levels he spoke of ,

where no
thoughts or images exist .

       I spk here of the inherent + deeply mystical

nature of
all con's not just Seths or mine .

       I think it is poss' that Seth would have

gotten  to it if Jane had been around longer but
unfortunately for all of us she went her way earlier

than i think anyone would have wished .

      Not all have this deeply mystical nature at

work in their lives but i'm sure there must be one

or two sethians who would want to explore a bit more

deeply these more intangible aspects of con's .

      So i would like to intro' the topic of a

conversation in Seths terms about his

undifferentiated level which i call void states ,

Bud's call jhana +or  other experience outside of

the manifest system(s) + into that ''area'' where

there are no thoughts or images / formlesness . 

      It is quite tastless + even horrifying to

some, the idea of a con's which is in an area or

level where no thoughts or images exist .   so as i

say, this is a specialist subject for those who have

knowledge or experience of jhana or void states or
Seths undiff' area, formlesness etc ,
    + to where they might lead or to what they may

be be pointing to .


    I'l leave it there for the while to see if there

is any response or if anyone actually knows the fck

what i am talking about .

     love , peace   , paul

[BethAnne]

Hello VPaul.
Interesting.  A very tricky state of mind to describe.  Subjective. Who knows what a person is experiencing at that level.  Looked up jhana.

"He thinks any thought he wants to think, and doesn't think any thought he doesn't want to think. He wills any resolve he wants to will, and doesn't will any resolve he doesn't want to will. He has attained mastery of the mind with regard to the pathways of thought.

Is this the direction you are going with this?

My own experiences since a very small child was  terror where I was in a state of NOTHING.  Ego death.  Followed by Bliss.  I have only been able to withstand this state this last 5 years or so.  From this Nothing State comes "being".

It's a non-verbal state of Mind.  How to describe it???

[Deb]

With the incredible knowledge at his
fingertips, i used to wonder y he did not espouse a
little bit more the mystical nature of several other
groups in history ie, jhana , or even offer a map of
his own , ie what would Seths jhana look like ?

First off, welcome to the forum voidypaul!
Glad to have you here.

Personally I never really questioned Seth's lack of delving into mystics
because I've always viewed his explanations as more science than spirit.
Just my take on it.
He did touch on Christianity more than anything else,
and even with that there is not much said. Or at least as far as I've read.
I think that was mainly because of Jane's upbringing,
maybe questions on her and Rob's behalf.
It seems he even offered to go more in-depth about that,
and was willing to devote an entire book and they never took him up on it.

Your mention of void states reminds me of what I've been learning from Dr. Joe Dispenza
(you'll have to forgive me, I've recently done one of his advanced workshops and I'm still high on the experience).
But Joe's goal is to get people into that void state,
the state of no-one, no-where, no-thing,
which physics presents as The Field aka The Zero Point Field or The Quantum Field of Possibilities.
Where particles (matter) turn back into waves,
uncollapsed waves of pure possibility or potential.
The state in which creation can take place.
Joe describes it as complete unlimited blackness,
tries to make us feel like we are just a speck of consciousness or thought
floating in the big black void.
It's not scary to me.

Please let me know if I'm way off base in responding to what you said.
But... I think you'll find enough people here that
"actually know the fck what you are talking about."

[John Sorensen]

    Hi ,
       there are a few issues i would like to get

ironed out in a sethian context as i have a great

deal of respect for the Seth material + indeed think

it the best available .


      Unfortunately Seths creation account is short +
not v detailed , + also his knowledge + perhaps

experience 
of what i call void states + Bud's call jhana  ,
is a little lacking.

     love , peace   , paul

Hi  Paul, you will find what you are looking for in Ken Wilber's "Integral Spirituality". It's the culmination of 30 years of studies looking at enlightenment from all the world's religions, wisdom traditions etc, it correlates them all into levels, it points out their benefits, and their major deficits, such as the western "shadow work" which is not part of any traditional eastern religion whatsoever.

Seth's work is a different area altogether. He never set out to document Buddhism, or the states and stages of Buddhism. If you read the entire body of work that makes up the main Seth books, you will see that various religious states of ecstasy, enlightment, waking up, showing up etc are  only the beginning.

Seth's body of work eclipses all of our world religions, most of which are rather antiquated, in need of massive overhaul, and rather out of date.

For more on this topic see "Evolutionary Enlightenment" by Andrew Cohen and "Unique Self" by Marc Gafni.

Both authors have done some bad things (that I have read about online) I don't know how true such things are. But the teachings in those books are valid regardless of what mistakes the authors may or may not have made in their personal lives. They are also truly revolutionary books that bridge the gap from classical to modern enlightenment, which is quite different to what you will find in ANY eastern teachings.

While I enjoy writings such as Bhaghavad Gita, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and Buddhist writings, they are rather archaic. Some of the ideas still hold true, but the Seth material was put down in the 1970s. It is much more modern, the scope and frame of the entire material is much more expansive. If classical Buddism, Hinduism, Zen etc is the A,B,C's of enlightment, Seth deals with a full alphabet.

While I respect the different traditions we have on earth, at some point all of our world religions can only take you so far, then you have to explore further, in a larger context that the religions were never designed to comprehend or handle.

Our modern world is very different than the world of 2000+ years ago.

For a complete catalogue of all religious and meditative states including the common flaws and fallacies in each tradition please do read Ken Wilber's "Integral Spirituality" - it may save you several decades of reading / meditations .


It is one of the most important books available today to anyone with any interest in classical or modern enlightenment, the various states and stages of enlightenment, and how it is essential to wake up, grow up, show up and clean up. Without all four, you have an incomplete system - which is currently every religion on earth.


There is no more complete system available. It literally is the culmination of 30+ years of work that Integrates every major religious / spiritual tradition on earth in a cohesive lucid readable chart on the path of enlightenment, human potential / growth which includes waking up to the divine self / overself/ god, states and stages of consciousness, as well as western psychology, shadow work and more. All in a cohesive framework that points out the major stumbling blocks and errors in all religious systems, which are "true but incomplete", and how to avoid those stumbling blocks by adding to your practices, rather than rejecting your tradition / faith etc. It is truly inclusive.

[voidypaul]

   Hi BethAnne ,
                thaks for your reply.

         nice one, you looked up jhana.
   unfortunately the jhana u read was to do with
mind control as it exists within the mareial /cam'

system.

    Here are a few quotes from Seth to help define

the 'area' of con's i am interested in;

     VOl 7 ; pg 48
              ; '' this is what happens when you

adopt a psuedoform in projections,    when you

tavel, so to spk , beyond a certain range of

intensities , even  psuedoobjects must vanish .

They exist in a cluster about, + connected to, your

own system.   
            The lack of even psuedoobjects

obviously means that you have gone beyond your cam'

sys' . 
            The completely uncam' areas at the

outer edges of the vairious sys' should remind you

of the undif' areas between vair ' life cycles in

the subcon' . This is no coin' , as this general

setup occurs in all realities .
            He goes on to say ; ''you r in touch

with inf'y in such undiff' areas for it is only

cam' that gives you your conception of time .
            The completely uncam' layer could be

rather bewildering . you might automatically

attempt to project images within it but they would

not take ,so to spk , but would appear to app' +

dissa' with great rapidity . This would be a silent

area. Thoughts as a rule would not be percieved

here , for the symbols that form them would not be

understood.           If a certain intensity is

reached here, a peak of intensity, then you could

percieve the spacious pr' as it exists within your

native sys' .

paul;         For me  this first ''step'' outside of

the native sys' is called the 1st void state + the

Bud's call it inf' sp' or 5th jhana. 

   Void 1 awareness is outside of the sys' into

which you were born or seeded. Not even thoughts

can be made manifest in this area, this undiff' sp'

or field or level  is ''beyond'' F2 , no images or

thoughts.   Do you uderstand  ? 

  this is the direction for me .

     Beth said;
                From this Nothing State comes

"being".

It's a non-verbal state of Mind.  How to describe

it???

paul;   I will eventually get round to describing my

vairious void states.
   ps.  if you google jhana then you will get

wikepedia + others which have good decriptions of

jhana.
    i am only inrerested in jhanas 5 to 9 .
  inf' space to cessation
           peace, paul     


  Hi Deb.
          i agree Seth is quite scientific + i

really like that part of his work.
           He is also quite the little mystic but i

agree again that Janes beliefs got a little in the

way of a fuller descr'.

           I will have to look up mr Dispenza +

post him , looks interesting. (keep that high going
Deb) 
       you quoted ;

       Joe's goal is to get people into that void

state,
the state of no-one, no-where, no-thing,
which physics presents as The Field aka The Zero

Point Field or The Quantum Field of Possibilities.
Where particles (matter) turn back into waves,
uncollapsed waves of pure possibility or potential.
The state in which creation can take place.
Joe describes it as complete unlimited blackness,
tries to make us feel like we are just a speck of

consciousness or thought
floating in the big black void.
It's not scary to me.

paul;   yes i believe he is more or less spot on here,
this is Seths undifferentiated area + my 1st void

state + Bud's 5th jhana.
  + im really pleased to know that this does not

phase you.  yes ur right on base + yes i think

folks are fairly aware of what i spk of on this

site . Groovy.
                paul

  Hi John,
           some good points here.

im sure Ken Wilber's "Integral Spirituality" is
an excellent work but ive done that bit + my work

at the moment is to correlate the mystical

traditions Ken talks about with Seths work + to go

beyond both.
             I hope u do not find this an arrogant

statement to make + i hope you will come to

understand that i am no lightweight in these areas.
     
     u said;
             Seth's work is a different area

altogether. He never set out to document Buddhism,

or the states and stages of Buddhism. If you read

the entire body of work that makes up the main Seth

books, you will see that various religious states

of ecstasy, enlightment, waking up, showing up etc

are  only the beginning.

Seth's body of work eclipses all of our world

religions, most of which are rather antiquated, in

need of massive overhaul, and rather out of date.

paul;        I have read all of Seths works.
  I dont think you understand jhana here , it is

more than just 'waking' up. It is at levels beyond

the matertal system completely,  (see seth quotes

above to Beth) .
                 Actually the material form is left

far behind + the con's goes completely outside of

the system into which it was born. So waking up in

the sense u use it here is sort of the v 1st baby

steps so to spk.

  to deal with the subject of Andrew Cohen +
Marc Gafni.
              i dont give a flying fck what anyone

has done in their lives in the past, if they are

changed + then add to the general enlightenment

then good for them. Bad karma turned good.

      i am also trying to bridge the gap from

classical to modern enlightenment but i have

experience of these things + im not sure if they

have more than an intellectual understanding.

John  you also said;
                  While I respect the different

traditions we have on earth, at some point all of

our world religions can only take you so far, then

you have to explore further, in a larger context

that the religions were never designed to

comprehend or handle.

paul;       i disagree, religions were directly designed

to both comprehend (in the mystical realisations of

jesus , Buddha etc had personally) + the structured

religious texts that were supposed to contain this

+ to
disseminate it.

                if they have failed in this , is

not to do with jesus or buddha but the nobheads

that came after.

              im sorry but you cannot say that i

have a complete or incom' system until you know

what it is my system is all about.
             
               i do not need anyones books , i have

experience of these things + am just trying to put

it into Sethian terms.   Nevertheless i thank you

kindly for the time + effort u put into this post.
         paul

[BethAnne]

Paul...very intriguing.  May I ask some questions to wrap my mind around?  I would not take offense if you don't want to go there.
Did your awareness come about because of your culture or pushing against?  Is this something you have pondered your entire life?  Are you young or old...in that do you have an innate understanding or did it develop with age?  Are you at a point where you are pushing past what you already understand?

I'll try to understand from my perspective and read some more.
BA

[Deb]

Joe's goal is to get people into that void

state,
the state of no-one, no-where, no-thing,
which physics presents as The Field aka The Zero

If you do look him up, it's DR Joe Dispenza. There's another Joe Dispenza out there,
or there was (he died not long ago) that is not related in any way.
The JD I mentioned is a doctor who became interested in people that were on their deathbeds
and made spontaneous recoveries from their illnesses.
His study was--what did those people have in common?
It turned out to be they changed their "minds" and therefore changed their reality.
Quantum change.
His mission in life is to teach people that they make their own reality,
they are not victims of anything,
and teaches them HOW to take control of their reality.
But his perspective is from mostly from a scientifically based angle,
because he feels science is more widely accepted than any other discipline.
Many people that attend his workshops have spontaneous recoveries.
His goal is not to create people who are dependent on him--
he wants to teach people to take back their power.

You're a very interesting person.
You are very much committed to meditation-beyond-meditation.
How do you discipline your mind to stay in that state?
I have way too much mind chatter going on
and regardless of how many times I rein-in my wandering mind,
I can't seem to overcome the wandering chat.
I feel a very strong need to make some progress.

[voidypaul]

   Hi Beth ,
             ask any questions you like , i am not

easily offended + if someone does give some

blatant offense , i just ignore them .

Beth;
        Did your awareness come about because of

your culture or pushing against?

paul;
         I think pushing against would be close but

not entirely accurate . I was always one of those

otherworldly type of children . At 13yrs i took my

fist lsd + was so fascinated by what i experienced

that i used it from time to time as i grew up.
           
Beth;
        Is this something you have pondered your

entire life   

paul;
       yes Beth , i am one of those who has always
taken seriously their innate curiosity about where

we come from etc,etc.

Beth;
       Are you young or old...in that do you have

an innate understanding or did it develop with

age?

paul;
        Now i am 56 + yes i have that innate

understanding, as we all do  (but i have faith in

it), if i did not then
i would not have been able to go as far as i did .
  + yes it has developed with age as my most

intense + complete experience came at about 24yrs

+ it has taken me till now to have a comprehensive
understanding of that initial + primary

experience.    I have had many other similar exp's
but that one was huge , even for me.

Beth;
        Are you at a point where you are pushing

past what you already understand?

  paul;
        ahhh, hahaha yes excellent question B .
     In one sense there is no pushing past that

primary exp'.  it is my understanding that it led

me completely outside of this universal

manifestation, Seths camouflage univ' + on to an

'encounter' of my awareness as its initial

conciousness unit CU, created by ATI.
      I dont think one can go much further. Of

course i may be wrong but when i have at some

point descibed my 'journey' you can decide for

yourself how far you think i went.

     I like you B , your curiosity is uplifting,
+ you are willing to 'stretch' your perspctives.
One can  do no more.
     i think this is the most difficult thing for

anyone understand .

   At the 'center' of all or any manifestation be

it an atom or cell or personality or entity + even

those primary gestalts Seths spks of, IS a single

unit of con's .  These CU's are the initial

manifestation of ATI at the point of (actually

just before) creation.

   peace + love paul


  Hi Deb,
          ahhh lovely, more curiosity. it is that

which has always been my guide, that innate,

innocent, honest curiosity. 

   If you would post me a link then i can let you

know wether i have emailed THE Dr Joe or someone

who will now think i am some off the wall nutter
trying to blow his mind hahahahahah.

   Deb;
         You're a very interesting person.
You are very much committed to meditation-beyond-

meditation.

  paul;
        thank you for your compliment Deb +
      love the insight of medit' beyond medit' ,
there are few meditators who can concentrate as

intensely so as to go beyond the manifest system
+ into the non manif' realms .

Deb;
      How do you discipline your mind to stay in

that state?

paul;
       ohh another brilliant question.
      Obviously it is to do with how one applies

oneself + the faith in reaching the 'goal''+ the

concentration + energy one can build up within

oneself that matters.
                       More times than not i do

not even get off the ground , so to spk. And in

fact i may not even medit' for days or weeks on

end so as not to grind myself down + to make it

feel like a freshness, a pleasure again to enter

back into it.

        Obviously i have used v intense methods of
dissociation as Seth puts it.
        i have gone into semi isolation both

within the city + also in a cave in the remote
Himalayas ( where i first heard the eternal OM )
+ medit' for hours + days + weeks + evem months on

end.  Im that sort of a nutter.  I did not get

married nor have any children as i knew from a

young age that i would not be able to keep up with

both things together.   Some can .

      In a sense its not really discipline except

in the sense of sittting down to do it.
      If my mind chatters then i let it go for a

while + resolve anything that seems to be too

insistent but then i let my ego know that the

jewels + fruits lay beyond the chitter chatter +

it
knows this is true + helps by shutting up +

waiting + expecting something more interesting to

arise.  sometimes it does sometimes it dont, +
sometimes good shit happens.  But i never try to

force it.   You can do it . i wish i was there to

help but maybe one day we can synchronise + i will

try + lend a hand.

  Deb;
      no images or thoughts.   Do you uderstand  ?



Im wondering if we are talking about the same

thing?  They put me on drugs as a 5 yr old when I

flipped out from being in a Nothing State. 

paul;
        wow , who the fck (freakin quacks i

suppose ) would give a 5yr old drugs ?  I imagine

they believed they were helping you  but...
       I would have to know a little more of your

exp' of this nothing state to really make a

comment about it . if this might be difficult for

you then in the future we could have a more

private chat if you like .  But i leave that to

you.
      i also look forward to what you have to say

Deb.
 
   Deb;
        How does this benefit your "Real World"

Life?

paul;
        well, in mystical parlance , the whole of

existence or , the 'real' worlds come out of the

void.
      in Seths terms, it might be something like,
  the CU's are a part of + potion of the undiff'
area before they become the EE units that create

all of the manifest fields + camoufl' realities

that can then be exp'd by a physically  oriented

con's.  Rather loosely put but essentialy accurate
according to Seth i think.

   it benefits me in the sense that i know where

my ultimate freedom lies. which is 'closer to ATI.
  in my deepest medit's i have been able to

percieve
many realities or worlds at once in simultaneous

harmony even with my eye's open + for days on end.

     love peace , paul

   i'm sorry to you both but i have rather had to

dash this out , got some things to do . ta ra .

[Deb]

when i have at some

point descibed my 'journey' you can decide for

yourself how far you think i went.

I, for one, am looking forward to that day.

Hi Deb,
          ahhh lovely, more curiosity. it is that

which has always been my guide, that innate,

innocent, honest curiosity. 

How does anyone continue to learn and grow without curiosity?
I've actually joked about legally changing my name to "Just Curious."

Here is Dr. Joe's web site  Like most sites these days it's impossible to get to a valid email address. But I was told by his staff that if an email was sent to customerservice@drjoedispenza.com they would forward it to him (if it passed muster).
I thought the "other" Joe Dispenza (author) died, but apparently reports of his death were greatly exaggerated.
Chances are you found the correct Joe, he's the more prominent one on the internet.

i let my ego know that the

jewels + fruits lay beyond the chitter chatter +

it
knows this is true + helps by shutting up +

waiting + expecting something more interesting to

arise.

Beautifully said.
Thank you for sharing all of this about you and your meditation, happy (!) to hear you also can go for periods without meditating, some days can't get "off the ground." I waver in my success, it was certainly much easier being at Joe's workshop last month with 499 other people that were meditating together several times a day. Joe even had us meet at 4 am one morning, guided us through a 4 hour meditation. I was amazed when it was over, it really didn't feel any longer than the usual 1 hour meds he does I definitely lost track of time. Would have been easier to concentrate if I didn't have to use the WC near the end lol, it was a definite distraction but his #1 rule during meditation is if you leave the room you can't return. Next time—Depends (adult diapers, just kidding, but he could have a good product there "Joe Depends-zas, so you can meditate all day and not break your state").

You can do it . i wish i was there to

help but maybe one day we can synchronise + i will

try + lend a hand.

Well I have plans to be in your part of the world this summer—being in the same time zone would certainly help.


Paul, there are some quotes in your post you seem to have attributed to me (should be BethAnne), about the drugs at age 5, no images no thoughts, real world benefits.

I don't know if you know about the partial quotes you can make on this forum, but that might make it easier for you. It's an extra I'd added onto the forum (not all of them have that ability). All you need to do is highlight whatever words you want to quote, and then click "Quote (selected)." Just trying to be helpful.

[BethAnne]

[BethAnne]

wow , who the fck (freakin quacks i suppose ) would give a 5yr old drugs ?

Dr. Hetman who oversaw Indiana State Mental Hospital where Mike Tyson was jailed when it later became a prison was the doctor.  I've always wondered if I was an "experiment"?f

It just occurred to me that I should add that I wasn't a patient.  Hetman was the only MD around and did both jobs.  They sent me to Dr. Zulu in Chicago for an EEG where they said they didn't know what was wrong so they put me on phenobarb tho it wasn't epilepsy.

[LenKop]

Who would give a 5 year old druga?

Most of Western Pharma these days...lol

Sorry, I couldn't help myself...

My wife was reading the other day, that a large percentage of neuroscientists don't belive in ADHD, but attribute the childrens behaviour as immaturity. But if you don't fit in the box, then there's a drug to 'fix' you.

As to freeing the mind, well there must be a long list of drugs that can help us with that...lol

LK

[voidypaul]

  Hi Deb,
        nice to get ur posts.

   u said;
            I, for one, am looking forward to that

day.

   paul;
          haha, hope i dont dissapoint

           if you know of Barrie Gellis' site ,
under paul gould '
there are a few posts i have made to him recently.
They might help in pointing out the direction from

which i come + into which i go.
           Ask any questions u like Deb, i get the

impression of a person of integrity + intelligence
so don't hold back lass i'm sure there are hidden

gems of experience + observation in you.

    Deb;
          How does anyone continue to learn and

grow without curiosity?
I've actually joked about legally changing my name

to "Just Curious."

    paul;
          right on , cant be done, no curiosity no

growth, curiosity is  everything to me, if i ever

lost it i'd shoot myself in the head + start

again.   its my middle name  (if only ), i would

love to meet someone called just curious, its a

brilliant name + would make anyone + everyone just

get plain curious , love it.

        thanks for the link.

  yep, being amongst like minded people is good

for the soul + medit'.  When energies join

together incredible results can be gained .
      Glad u got right into it , if you can

remember that state of mind in ur present med's it

helps.  You gave me a good laugh there about

meditation nappies, i like a good sense of humour.

  If you come to jolly old blighty this summer i

would be quite happy to meet for a tea + cakes at

a place of ur choosing , maybe we can become

friends .

        oops about the BethAnne comments.

   dont know about partial quotes Deb, but i'l try

what u suggested . 
     i have only just got back into online groups

after 5yrs + im an inernet + computer nitwit,
so please forgive my numerous mistakes in

etiquette etc,,,   
     im getting a new laptop soon + promised

myself i will learn more about using it .

peace,love paul

  Hi BethAnne,
                there were/are quite a few dodgy

medical experiments going on around the world +

certainly a few have been uncovered here + over

there, the whole mk ultra thing etc,etc. What a

bunch of wankers what they did to some innocent

people + children.   They got some shit karma

coming their way.
  I hope ur illness got sorted quickly , but

putting a 5yr old on phenobarb is disgusting +

again i hope it did'nt last too long .
           i was diagnosed as an epileptic wen i

was 13yrs + was put on phenetoin , that wasnt nice

+ i soon stopped it. lsd did me much more good

than those brain drugs, really scary sometimes but

that didnt stop me hahahahahahahahah .
    thanks for the link to Shiva medit', as it

happens old Shiv is my favourite Hindoo god , cool

dude, how did u know ? brought back some good

memories , ta.

     peace,love paul

  Hi Lenkop;
              nice name, is there dutch or so

there ?

           yeah, i'd agree , adhd is bolox, just

another way for the bastered drug companies to

cash in but don't get me started on that topic, i

hate most if not all multinationals etc + i'd cut

their balls off ,politically spkg of course +

throw them to the masses they've rippied off.

    yes Lenkop a long list indeed + i tried quite

a few if them myself wen i was young.  Have a

little weed sometimes now but the others were for

the initial lift off + introduction to those other

'places' until i learnt to go there thru medit'

etc, but thats another story wheeeeeeee .

      peace,love paul

[Deb]

if you know of Barrie Gellis' site

Is that the one on Yahoo? Seth Message Board? I tried to join, was never sent a confirmation, but now see that I've been "accepted." I can't figure out how to find you on there, I don't see a link for Members (some admins don't allow member viewing). So... I'll be patient. Barry actually joined here, he wanted me to add his book to the list of authors.

yep, being amongst like minded people is good

for the soul + medit'.  When energies join

together incredible results can be gained .

I totally agree. I've been in different group settings for meditation and the power is amazing, magnified by the combined intentions. Then of course there have been those having their own "When Harry Met Sally" restaurant-like experiences that kind of detract and distract from the experience for the rest of the group. I guess it balances itself out.

If you come to jolly old blighty this summer i

would be quite happy to meet for a tea + cakes at

a place of ur choosing , maybe we can become

friends .

Old blighty, I had to look that up. A new one for me. 
Yes, that would be nice. I have definite plans to be in Cornwall for a week in early June, have more time to spend afterwards and will end up in London for the last few days. Still up in the air about those dates, but I'll let you know when I get closer to then. I just started watching Poldark, it's all filmed in Cornwall and the stables I'll be visiting maintain & train the horses for the show. This way I will get familiar with the countryside AND learn the language, lol. This will be my third trip to England, I call it the Mothership. BethAnne could probably explain why feels like home to me. I refuse to drive a car in England (but will ride the horses, underground, buses). Nope. None of those magic roundabouts for me. My brain doesn't work that way.

after 5yrs + im an inernet + computer nitwit,
so please forgive my numerous mistakes in

etiquette etc,,,   

No worries, do you own thing! I was just trying to make life easier for you, there are just a couple of bells & whistles I've added on for convenience and not everyone notices them. There are no real rules here for etiquette other than playing nice. Good luck with the new laptop. I'm not a computer nerd per se but I've had my share of Macs and understand them very well.

As you say, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

[BethAnne]

This will be my third trip to England, I call it the Mothership. BethAnne could probably explain why feels like home to me. I refuse to drive a car in England (but will ride the horses, underground, buses).

Riding a horse is one of those "triggers" which makes floating back to a past life memory easy.  EVERYONE in one life or another has been around a horse.  While you are riding focus on a "horse thing" and allow your memory to go back.  For me it is the sound of the leather of the saddle as the horse moves.

Camp fires work that way...Big Water.  Here in Northern New Mexico the smell of sage brush takes me back.  I'm hoping that when you come down on our way to Santa Fe we can sit in the Kiva.  I'm betting you have done that before.  It's a 20 minute walk from my place over the river.

[Deb]

I'm hoping that when you come down on our way to Santa Fe we can sit in the Kiva.  I'm betting you have done that before.  It's a 20 minute walk from my place over the river.

Is the place in your photo the one near you? It looks wonderful. No, I've never done that before. But I've spent some time/meditated in The Great Stupa at Shambhala. It's beautiful and amazing.

I'd love to sit in the Kiva, so count me in!

[barrie]

The best site to reach me is my Facebook site: https://www.facebook.com/groups/177996360825/


Anyone can email me with comments or questions at: bargell@aol.com


Or, of course--anyone can simply comment in this thread or ask questions, too.

[LenKop]

Thanks Barrie.

LK

[voidypaul]

     Hi Deb + Beth , hope you are both keeping well.
             i like the description of uk as the mothership Deb , it certainly has some ancient roots + a pleasant place to live , probably you've been born here from time to time + i feel i have chosen it as my last incarnation (i hope) to have space to do the final work on my voidyness.  Whenever you come over Deb + if you do happen to have the time to meet for a tea + lighthearted chat + as long as you feel comfortable to do so , then just let me know where + when (in London) + i will try to accommodate + make you feel welcome.
             I like the sounds of your ganesh expansion Beth , there are infinite realities of expression all as valid as each other + hopefully your contact will bring  added energy + undestanding to you + others.
             i actually think in some way that my viodyness goes somewhat  against the grain for most sethies as i tend to 'pull' in the opposite direction in the sense that i go back toward the source rather than out into the creation as most sethies do.       Most sethies i've found are expansive in their expression + understanding of the Seth material which of course is the main message he gives but there is the great contraction of being also + this takes one outside of the manifest creation into that formless undifferentiated field Seth spoke of (void to me)+ which is in fact the birthplace of all manifest being. For me , my mysticism has ultimately led to a letting go of all that is + a feeling that i will not return to any sort of rebirth , at least not in any material universe .
             But what is there beyond the manifest realms of being ? Why is formlessness + void so attractive to the likes of me ?  What is left when there are not even thoughts or images of any kind ?  What is consciousness here ?   
         Being is more 'alive' + vibrant + existing within 'intensities' unparalleled to those of any manifest  consciousness , human orgasm is an infinitesimally weak brew in comparison to some of the 'depths' of intensities but there are refinements  here in which even  emotion + intensity is brought to rest + non being is 'approached' , the silence of the 'soul' , the 'suspension' of all + any expression , Pure void (in my terms) . The most pure + tranquil peacefulness of consciousness goes into nonbeing . It is not nonexistent , it is in nonbeing , a complete + utter suspension of all possibilities or probabilities of expression .  And here, strangely enough, is where one meets That which Is +  nonduality .    There are , several stages or void states/intensities to go thru before one reaches suspension/nonbeing but that is another story for another day .

            Even Seth speaks of intensities within the undifferentiated field so some may be able to understand what I am trying to say here .
               peace , paul

[BethAnne]

Your thoughts give a lot to ponder upon.
Does John Lilly's work resonate with you?

[voidypaul]

    Hi Beth Anne,
                thanks for the links to Mr Lillys early works . Although i hav'nt used a deprivation tank i would imagine that they are a v useful tool to help in dissociation . But once one has the feel or experience of letting go of the physical sensory mode then all these tools become just that , tools that have helped to gain access to the 'other side' + that can be dispensed with once knowledge + some familiarity is gained of such regions.
                I understand what he says of the ego levels but these are perhaps a little bit of nonsense that has come about because of the abysmally useless state of psychotherapy as it was used at the time of these vids + even now there has not been much change . I would hope that mr lilly has changed his opinion + would have a more progressive view of the self by now.      What i mean , is that the pretty little ego + all of its foibles can be entirely bypassed but that involves a great leap of faith + perhaps a little intellectual understanding of where one is going , so to speak.

               
                When i first encountered void i was about 23-24yrs old + had no understanding whatsoever of void let alone satori or what the ego was composed of, so this whole part can be v safely + easily transcended , it is only his method he is talking about when he says that one must be grounded in the body + i respect that this is his method but it is entirely unecessary . When one reaches into the void (undifferentiated level) then one is not in the body + actually the body is left in a suspended state , consciousness is only the body con's + the self is outside of the manifest system entirely . All of his levels of satori come in the same category of 'this is one way (his way) to go' but it is unecesary . Also , he said that the chakras + kundalini needed to be sort of synthesised into the present day understanding , nope again totally unecesary , i easily passed thru all the chakrs before i got to cosmic con's + then into void .  One must only have a true faith in one's self + that is all + one can go the whole way , the self is all that is + all that is is the self .  Ego reduction my ass . But this goes for all of those that offer steps + levels of expansion , the Buddists , the Hindus etc , etc , they are all totally unecessary + only in my view used as methods of indoctrination + belonging to the clan , so to spk , helpful in some respects but all to be left behind when one touches the reality  that is , has always + will always be inherent in each + every self ,one only needs to faithfully look inward + the fruits are already there . What one does with them is another matter entirely .         

              As i say , i'd hope that mr lillys philosophy is much more expanded by now + he himself has done away with all of these spurious + unecessary methods + levels of attainment . But again , thanks for the links , they were interesting to pull apart .

              Have a nice day Beth , peace , paul

[BethAnne]

As i say , i'd hope that mr lillys philosophy is much more expanded by now + he himself has done away with all of these spurious + unecessary methods + levels of attainment

   Probably.
John Cunningham Lilly (January 6, 1915 – September 30, 2001) was an American physician, neuroscientist, psychoanalyst, psychonaut, philosopher, writer and inventor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly

[BethAnne]

How does the Void apply practically in your life?

My interpretation of the Void seems to be where I create anew.

[John Sorensen]

As i say , i'd hope that mr lillys philosophy is much more expanded by now + he himself has done away with all of these spurious + unecessary methods + levels of attainment

   Probably.
John Cunningham Lilly (January 6, 1915 – September 30, 2001) was an American physician, neuroscientist, psychoanalyst, psychonaut, philosopher, writer and inventor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly

Interesting fellow. His fears sound awfully similar to H. P. Lovecrafts genuine fear of malevolent elder gods / primal forces in the universe.

From the Wiki page I just linked to and read from above post:


Earth Coincidence Control Office (E.C.C.O.)[edit]


In 1974, Lilly's research using various psychoactive drugs led him to believe in the existence of a certain hierarchical group of cosmic entities, the lowest of which he later dubbed Earth Coincidence Control Office (E.C.C.O.) in an autobiography published jointly with his wife Antonietta (often referred to as Toni). To elaborate, "There exists a Cosmic Coincidence Control Center (CCCC) with a Galactic substation called Galactic Coincidence Control (GCC).


Within GCC is the Solar System Control Unit (SSCU), within which is the Earth Coincidence Control Office (ECCO)."[20] This conclusion had been predicted in his past works having stated that, "For the first time I began to consider that God really existed in me and that there is a guiding intelligence in the universe."[21]
He also states that there exist nine conditions which should be followed by humans who seek to experience coincidence in their own lives.


*You must know/assume/simulate our existence in E.C.C.O.


*You must be willing to accept our responsibility for control of your coincidences.


*You must exert your best capabilities for your survival programs and your own development as an advancing/advanced member of E.C.C.O.'s earthside corps of controlled coincidence workers. You are expected to use your best intelligence in this service.


*You are expected to expect the unexpected every minute, every hour of every day and of every night.
You must be able to maintain conscious/thinking/reasoning no matter what events we arrange to happen to you. Some of these events will seem cataclysmic/catastrophic/overwhelming: remember stay aware, no matter what happens/apparently happens to you.


*You are in our training program for life: there is no escape from it. We (not you) control the long-term coincidences; you (not we) control the shorter-term coincidences by your own efforts.


*Your major mission on earth is to discover/create that which we do to control the long-term coincidence patterns: you are being trained on Earth to do this job.


*When your mission on planet Earth is completed, you will no longer be required to remain/return there.
Remember the motto passed to us (from G.C.C. via S.S.C.U.): "Cosmic Love is absolutely Ruthless and Highly Indifferent: it teaches its lessons whether you like/dislike them or not."[22]

[BethAnne]

"Cosmic Love is absolutely Ruthless and Highly Indifferent: it teaches its lessons whether you like/dislike them or not."
I don't know who really said this but I agree.

I'm thinking that "Altered States" by Ken Russell was based on John Lilly.

[Deb]

Interesting fellow. His fears sound awfully similar to H. P. Lovecrafts genuine fear of malevolent elder gods / primal forces in the universe.

Ah Lovecraft, I discovered him as a teenager. Of all the books I've read and discarded over the years, I still have his. I wonder what mind-expanding drugs they were doing in the 20s and 30s...

remember stay aware, no matter what happens/apparently happens to you.

That seemed to be a really big thing with Lilly. He was certainly way out there. Another person walking the fine line between genius and insanity? Or maybe he was on to something, IDK.

I'm thinking that "Altered States" by Ken Russell was based on John Lilly.

You hit that nail on the head. I watched the clip and then watched a couple others. It made me think of DMT. What a wild movie that was.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_States:

"Both the novel and the film are based on John C. Lilly's sensory deprivation research conducted in isolation tanks under the influence of psychoactive drugs like mescaline, ketamine and LSD."

"Edward Jessup is a university professor of abnormal psychology who, while studying schizophrenia, begins to think that "our other states of consciousness are as real as our waking states."

Other states of consciousness as real as our waking states? How Seth that sounds...

[voidypaul]

    Hi John , Beth + Deb , hope you are all well.

           Just read John's bit on mr lilly .   Obviously our mr lilly was a bit of a crank , probably somewhat paranoid + more than a little bit deluded . I understand that these folks were sort of pioneers of the 'new age' but just like tim leary they were dabbling in areas of the psyche that they mostly misunderstood + took their experiences + hallucinations to be realities in themselves little knowing that they were their own personal interpretations of the underlying reality . I think Seth went to great lenghts to explain that although many psychics + mystics may well have come into contact with their inner selves , their belief structures were not sufficiently advanced so that they could overcome the inevitable distortions that are so apparent in their works as can be seen in mr lillys ramblings + also in mr leary's .

          Mainstream science ( in all areas ) can be put into the same category , like the infantile clinging to the preposterous idea of the big bang , what ludicrous nonsense that is but even the pope has thrown in the towel + agrees with it , bloody pathetic hypocrites , they even believe in evolution which is another crock of ....  Even the buddists go only half way as far as the void is concerned + trying to get a  a coherent conversation out of them concerning jhana is like trying to tell christians that there is no devil , they are all stuck to their ancient philosophies + little or no progress has been made . Personally i can't wait for the Christ personality to make his reappearance as he is the only one with the true knowledge of void etc .Even Seth aquiesces or defers to this personality .

          Its no wonder that there is so much confusion in the world today . Seth said that science is fairly progressed in our time but he also said that they were way off the mark when it comes down to the actual reality .

          Science has absolutely no idea of how the creation began nor will they as long as they are going to stick to their pathetic + inadequate standard model , standard my ass , more like sub standard .  Which is why i came to this site to see if anyone was aware of void states rather than bother with any academics as most of them have their heads stuck up their butts along with all of the books they've read .   But alas even tho Seth spoke of the void + the undifferentiated field , it sems that no one has been able to fathom what he meant which is why this post has gone so far off base , even barrie gellis had no idea of either of these topics + even claimed that Seth had said no such things .      I seriously wonder if there are any sethies out there who are conversant in this let alone anyone who could claim to be any sort of an expert on the Seth material itself , if anyone knows of someone who would claim to be conversant with the Seth material then please let me know who they are as i have tried several sites over the years + have yet to chat with anyone who knows what i am talking about let alone realising that these things are in the seth material itself .

         What i do think is that if jane had lived long enough Seth would have gotten into the formless aspects of the self which includes void + the undiff' field + i believe he would have called them framework 3 .

         Sorry if i seem to be ranting + raving somewhat , it is just my disappointment that the information i respect so much in the seth material is so little understood ( or rather deeply understood ) even in america . Over here in england it is even worse + most people are still in the junior school years of understanding seth , i even posted someone who claimed to have knowledge of seth's works , about void etc + they wanted to try + teach me about personal reality creation which i think was an attempt to conscript me on to one of their courses with obviously a fee involved . oooohhhh deary me . There was even a video uploaded on youtube with a conversation with mr gellis + i understand that it must have been something in the range of a fireside or cosy coffee shop chit chat but i was appalled at the distortions or superficiality of the information given + asked for . Personally i think that the whole of the sethie community needs to pull its collective socks up + get together to open a site in which accuracy + depth of info' is the key + foundation of conversation , i certainly hope this happens as it is saddening to me that so much is let slip by + superficiality seems to be the order of the day .   
         
         It would not surprise me if i am vilified for my comments here but i do honestly think that the general seth community needs a good shake up , so here it is , me shaking the old sethian tree .

         respectfully , paul .

[barrie]

Barrie Writes: There are a few categories of questions regarding Paul's comments: There is what Seth actually said; what Paul actually believes; and what Paul would like to find in the Seth material. What I believe you will eventually realize is that what you find the most deeply fascinating and significant parts of the Seth material, that would have or should be expanded upon, may not be what others believe.

There will be those who agree with your ideas of what is important and deep; and others who do not.  Some may believe the questions you raise are meaningless and unimportant—as you believe the questions they raise are.

This is the lesson of intellectual empathy I believe you must learn: All that you strongly feel is not objective fact—but simply feelings as real and as valid as those whose feelings and beliefs differ from you. You don't have the corner of Truth and Significance marked on the map—and only you know where they are and how to get there and why. Each one of us has such maps—and one is not better, more important, deeper, than the others. Each is rooted in the hearts and souls of those who hold those maps in their hands and minds.

In short, what you think is important, meaningful and deep is not objectively important, meaningful and deep.. It is subjectively important, meaningful and deep to YOU.  But it is not that it is objectively important and that other people just don't get it. They get what is important, meaningful and deep to THEM—and these things are also not objectively important, meaningful and deep; just subjectively to those who believe so.

I have found many times over the years that when the Seth material does not fit the beliefs of some Seth readers, those readers in question say something like, "IF Seth was free to say the full truth, then he would say what I'm saying." OR, "If Seth had the chance, he would say what I'm saying." OR some variation of this--which is what you now display by saying "that if jane had lived long enough Seth would have" spoken about the things I believe--in the manner that I believe them.

Your "call" to the Seth community is actually a call to have the Seth community think as you do; to have them find, think, feel and believe that what is important, meaningful and deep to them--falls in line your beliefs.

Paul Writes: Personally i think that the whole of the sethie community needs to pull its collective socks up + get together to open a site in which accuracy + depth of info' is the key + foundation of conversation."

Barrie Responds: I see that already happening all over the place. I know that most of the Seth discussions that I get into have those things included in the goal and task of the discussion. What I believe happens with you...is that when people don't believe and feel as you do...you deem them as not being accurate or deep because they do not share your beliefs about certain things. That is my opinion.

I would gladly engage you in any discussion relating to accuracy and depth regarding any part of the Seth material. And I have made the attempt for at least five years.

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. For the sake of discussion, let's limit it to that one term for now. What do you, specifically, mean by the term "void" and let's see how or if or to what degree it is found in the Seth material.

Be well,
Barrie

[BethAnne]

I hope you continue this discussion.

My version of the Void is one of my more practical "tools" that I use.  Going to the Nothing Place and creating anew.  That Nothing Place has been terrifying most of my life until about 5 years ago where it just didn't phase me any more.

I just finish a two day intense meditation using the Void.  There were several situations that supported that state of mind.  Several "ENDINGS".
Now I'm so disassociated.  I just "float" in this state of mind while the NEW rises to the surface and fills in the Voided space.

[voidypaul]

Hi Barrie + all,   I hope this will clarify


Barrie Writes: There are a few categories of questions regarding Paul's comments: There is what Seth actually said; what Paul actually believes; and what Paul would like to find in the Seth material. What I believe you will eventually realize is that what you find the most deeply fascinating and significant parts of the Seth material, that would have or should be expanded upon, may not be what others believe.

  Paul ;  Seth quite clearly states that before the creation of a (universal or) planetary manifestation consciousness had first to create the void + i gave you quotes many yrs ago . This is what  Seth actually said not what i believe or would like to believe nor what i would like to imagine i found in the Seth mat' . Yes i find this deeply fascinating , my experience of these states obviously leads me in this direction . Fair enough Barrie many/most sethians do not understand this topic which is why i bring it to the general community , but of course it is deeply significant (if only to me) as no material manifestation would or could have taken place without it (void) . Do you or others in the seth comm'y not have an interest in how creation takes place ?

  Barrie ;There will be those who agree with your ideas of what is important and deep; and others who do not.  Some may believe the questions you raise are meaningless and unimportant—as you believe the questions they raise are.

  Paul ; I have never said that other peoples questions are meaningless or unimportant i simply stated that the topic had gone off base + in this sense it was meaningless to the conversation but yes, where is the depth of understanding of these issues on any site ? .Also, i do not mind if someone asks other questions on other posts + if invited i may accept or decline (gracefully i hope) . I think you read too much into some of my comments perhaps because i have challenged you on several occaisions + somewhat gracefully you had accepted my challenge + i respect you for this .But you have not responded to my last posts on your site some month or so ago so you have some jet lag going on there me old fruit .

  Barrie ; This is the lesson of intellectual empathy I believe you must learn: All that you strongly feel is not objective fact—but simply feelings as real and as valid as those whose feelings and beliefs differ from you. You don't have the corner of Truth and Significance marked on the map—and only you know where they are and how to get there and why. Each one of us has such maps—and one is not better, more important, deeper, than the others. Each is rooted in the hearts and souls of those who hold those maps in their hands and minds.

  Paul ; Barrie please don't try + psychoanalyze me , you will lose yourself in ever decreasing circles . Again this is not , not , what i strongly believe , it is my experience + it IS in the Seth material . Please will you finally get this into your  skull  . The void IS an 'objective fact' . Again, i have never claimed the 'corner of truth + significance' as you put it , i am simply pointing out my own experience + how it does actually relate to the Seth material + asking if anyone else can relate to this or has experiences of their own of this nature or any interest in how the creation actually takes place , before any material manifestation . Without void niether you nor or i or anything would  have become manifest .  Yes i know of ways + means on 'how to get there' but i have never even mentioned this , as to why , i have stated that it is 'the journey home ' to the initial self as a conciousness unit (Seths terms , which i positively agree with) + its initial appearance but as yet unmanifest nor objectified . Yes Barrie these things are written into + inherent within each one of us but this type of map comes from the underlying reality + is not different for you or i , just in the interpretation , which is where i get pissed with the Buddists .


  Barrie ; In short, what you think is important, meaningful and deep is not objectively important, meaningful and deep.. It is subjectively important, meaningful and deep to YOU.  But it is not that it is objectively important and that other people just don't get it. They get what is important, meaningful and deep to THEM—and these things are also not objectively important, meaningful and deep; just subjectively to those who believe so.

  Paul ; Actually i'm begining to believe that you must have dropped out of some crash course on psychoanalysis Barrie . you don't need  to go into all this sillyness just stick to the topic + we'll to the point eventually as to wether there is a void or not + why + what purpose it serves to both you + me + the rest of creation .

  Barrie ; I have found many times over the years that when the Seth material does not fit the beliefs of some Seth readers, those readers in question say something like, "IF Seth was free to say the full truth, then he would say what I'm saying." OR, "If Seth had the chance, he would say what I'm saying." OR some variation of this--which is what you now display by saying "that if jane had lived long enough Seth would have" spoken about the things I believe--in the manner that I believe them.

  Paul ; I'm sure you have Barrie but please do not try + lump me in with those numptys . If you think about this seriously then i'm sure that one day you might come to the conclusion that ;
  1.   Seth did not or was unable to complete his work here . He had said that he looked forward to many years of the Seth material but alas this was not possible because of Jane's early passing over .
  2.   Seth without a doubt (in my mind I'll grant you) would have dealt with the unmanifest portions of the self which he had referred to also in his introduction of 'big brother' who was the source of the material , + again (in my mind) he would have referred to this unmanifest portion or field  ( the undifferentiated level/field/area ) as the 3rd framework , which then leads into + is a part of the VOID .I say framework 3 because Seth was working backwards from fram' 1 to the less physical fram' 2 so i would assume that the unmanifest field he would have called fram' 3, do you understand my reasoning here ? I also gave you quotes about Seth on the undiff' field (as well as the void) in my last post to you but you seem to have  forgotten this , or maybe you did not read it . You certainly did not reply .
  3.   Yes i agree that you may quite happily fob this off as being my delusion or whatever but then this is  where you cannot intellectualise , intuit nor understand the furhter complexities of the formless realm + of course this is your choice but it is there , more than implied in the Seth material + Seth 2 + i have chosen to go into it rather than shy away from it even if it leads me into condemnation or condescention from the sethian community .Perhaps i am wrong but i must put forward this concept so it may be explored/examined .

  Barrie ; Your "call" to the Seth community is actually a call to have the Seth community think as you do; to have them find, think, feel and believe that what is important, meaningful and deep to them--falls in line your beliefs.

  Paul ; fuck me Barrie please please try + drop the  psycho' stuff . I have just tried to introduce the topic to the general community + believe me that i have no problem with  what others feel is important, meaningful + deep to them personally , i just want to know what the level of understanding is of this particular topic + am a little disapointed that there is a paltry understanding amongst the sethian sites i have visited . A deeper understanding is obviously important to those in particular who claim to have a good working knowledge of the Seth mat' , as you i assume do . This does not mean that there are not sethians who do have an understanding of this but i have yet to come across them , + as you yourself have said to me that these concepts are not even in the material but i hope one day you will be big enough to admit that they are .

  Barrie ; Paul Writes: Personally i think that the whole of the sethie community needs to pull its collective socks up + get together to open a site in which accuracy + depth of info' is the key + foundation of conversation."

  Barrie Responds: I see that already happening all over the place. I know that most of the Seth discussions that I get into have those things included in the goal and task of the discussion. What I believe happens with you...is that when people don't believe and feel as you do...you deem them as not being accurate or deep because they do not share your beliefs about certain things. That is my opinion.

  Paul ; Really , well if you would be so kind as to introduce me to any sethian who has a good working knowledge of these topics then i will gladly converse with them + fathom what it is they know or have experienced as i'm sure they will do with me .


  Barrie ; I would gladly engage you in any discussion relating to accuracy and depth regarding any part of the Seth material. And I have made the attempt for at least five years.

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. For the sake of discussion, let's limit it to that one term for now. What do you, specifically, mean by the term "void" and let's see how or if or to what degree it is found in the Seth material.

  Paul ;     I have posted you on this topic several times over the years Barrie + given a reasonably good description of what i mean,  in particular my recent post starting 'ok , now i've found the right place' in which i describe my 1st void state in relation to Seths void , please refer to this post(s) + pass them on to anyone you like as i have given Seth's quotes as well .one thing that must be made clear is that the generalised dimension , nonexistence + vacuum in Seths terms are not to do with void , the void according to Seth is that condition or state of consciousness prior to any kind of manifestation + before it is endowed with all of the probabilities + possibilities + is very similar to his undiff' level .


                 I hope one day that we will find some common ground , i do actually appreciate that you doggedly persue the topic but i believe you have not quite digested what i have already posted you as there are Seth quotes on void + undifferentiated field . There is a quote on this site also , ie


the 'area' of con's i am interested in;

     VOl 7 ; pg 48
              ; '' this is what happens when you ,,,,        + vol 3 , sess 88 , pg 15 on the undiff' area between lives .


       on the undifferentiated level , the electrical field + vitality ( in its non manifest state )


   + Seth mat' sess' 453 , pg 286            on void , one of the only times he mentioned it .

  Also when Seth spoke of the unendurable mass i am quite convinced that this was the first ever void state, the one he refered to when he says that the initial planetary void state came from 'another greater than itself' .


    I have given these quotes again for you Barrie as i do  like you regardless of my thornyness + would hope that we will have a greater understanding one day .

    Ok barrie although this will make my post unendurably long for most tastes i think in the interests of clarity for you + any others who may be able to digest so much verbosity , here is my last post to you ,


     '' ok now ive found the right place + cleaned up all my mess .  OK , so now to answer just a few of Barries many + challenging questions....

Barrie Gellis ; What do you mean by "void space?" Directely. According to Seth there is no void,

paul ;  this quote from 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 formlesness .

Seth VOl 7 ; pg 48

''this is what happens when you adopt a psuedoform in projections, when you tavel, so to spk , beyond a certain range of intensities , even psuedoobjects must vanish . They exist in a cluster about, + connected to, your own system.'' (this particular universal manif'n)

''The lack of even psuedoobjects obviously means that you have gone beyond your cam' sys' . ''

''The completely uncamouflaged  areas at the outer edges of the vairious sys' should remind you of the undif' areas between vairious life cycles in the subcon' . This is no coincidence , as this general setup occurs in all realities .''

'' He goes on to say ; ''you r in touch with inf'y in such undiff' areas for it is only cam' that gives you your conception of time .
The completely uncam' layer could be rather bewildering . you might automatically attempt to project images within it but they would not take ,so to spk , but would appear to app' + dissa' with great rapidity . This would be a silent area. Thoughts as a rule would not be percieved here , for the symbols that form them would not be understood. If a certain intensity is reached here, a peak of intensity, then you could percieve the spacious pr' as it exists within your native sys''

1st void state of con's = infinte speck in an inf' space
no thoughts or images exist
either objectivly or subjectivly
internal + external awareness is of inf'space.

Paul; Seths uncam' area is the 1st void state / 5th jhana of inf'space . It is the first ''step outside'' of your native system . no thoughts or images of any kind can exist here , it cannot be known or apprehended from within any ''system'' (sys'). One must transcend or go outside of the whole of physical (phys') reality system in order to be able to 'percieve' such a state .

I hope this will help you to understand a little of the 1st void state , it is not a part of the manifest universe (uni') nor of any dimension within it ie, the dream univ', Seths level or dimen' or any other. It is not what Seth refers to as F2 .

When Seth says

'' If a certain intensity is reached here, a peak of intensity, then you could percieve the spacious pr' as it exists within your native sys''

what he means by this is , that from the 1st void state , or when one is within the undiff'area one can increase one's concentration/jhana to such an intensity (seth) that a further ''depth'' is reached/accessed ,

which is the 2nd void state / 6th jhana
+ a more intense frequency (seth) the electrical univerese/vitality.

the 2nd void state i call inf' mobility
the Bud's call it jhana 6 , inf'con's.
to Seth it is an increase of intensity

So to recap ,
the 1st voidstate / 5th jh' / is Seths undiff' area ; or the initial expansion of con's , entirely outside of its native universal system .
the con's is no longer within the phys' body or system. the body is in a suspended state .
there are no thoughts or images here
there is emotion , awareness , volition/action + intensity .

Which leads on + into the
2nd void state of inf' mobility

the Bud's call this inf' cons'/6th jhana + they arrive at it by an expansion of the inf'speck into + to become the inf'sp' + they then legitimately reach a state of inf' con's.
but in one dimension only

My way of expansion into inf' con's was different than the Bud's ,
by way of what i call the dynamic void states of con's .
i will not at this point go any further + wait to see if you now have a better understanding of what i actually mean by the term void states of con's , + my 1st vd/st' .

the generalised dimen'
vacuum
+ non existence ,
are not con's states they are the ''areas''
where con's has not yet manifested .

but

void states + nonbeing ARE con's in its vairious stages of becoming or dissolving, so to spk .

       peace , paul



 

[Deb]

It would not surprise me if i am vilified for my comments here

It's now very apparent that Paul, Barrie and others have this topic well covered
and I'm out of my league here.
I'll just sit back and appreciate the discussions.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

[barrie]

Hi Paul,

Let's examine one thing at a time. It's like eating a nice meal. You can stick your face onto the plate and mush and splash it all about, getting it all over yourself and onto the floor...and some in your tummy...or you can use a fork and savor each bite. So, with that in mind, let's just look at this part of your first paragraph:

Paul Writes: "Seth quite clearly states that before the creation of a (universal or) planetary manifestation consciousness had first to create the void + i gave you quotes many yrs ago . This is what  Seth actually said not what i believe or would like to believe nor what i would like to imagine i found in the Seth mat' ."

Barrie Responds: Well, let's see and examine if that is what Seth actually said or not.

I will find the quote in question. As to your beliefs, etc: If a quote is transcribed correctly, then it certainly is exactly what Seth said. BUT when it comes to the meaning and interpretation of the quote—that is where what you believe, what you would like to believe and/or imagine come into play.

So, even tho there can easily be an agreement as to what Seth actually said word-wise, when it comes to  interpretations--what you believe, etc, come into play. Interpretations may be correct or not—and all points in between—but in order to be closer to correct, they should be in harmony with the rest of Seth material in that area.

In any case, I will try to find the quote that you may be referring to. Then we can all see it, and it would help to ground the discussion. 

I have not yet fully read your post any further than the first paragraph, altho I did skim over the rest of it. But to have any sort of fruitful discussion, I believe it is best to agree on definitions, to agree or disagree as to what something actually means—and then move on to the next item, sentences or paragraphs.

I believe I have found the quote and am now working on it, breaking it down, so to speak. When I am done, I shall post my breakdown and comments.

Be well,
Barrie

[barrie]

Hi Paul,

I believe that years ago you wrote me a very short excerpt from Session 338. But I will give a slightly longer version to put the whole thing in better context. At the end of this post, I give a summary for you and everyone. Following right now, I believe, is your written words providing the excerpt of which you now speak. You wrote this on 8-11-11, I believe, or close to it:

Paul Had Written (8-11-11): "More on seth + what i have termed void (+ so did he in a way he was able to) , sessions vol 8 , session 338 pg 19 ,, i quote , '' B4 this the generalised dimension was simply NONEXISTENT , A VACUUM , which consciousness had not filled . Since cons's or action can never fully materialise itself , there r literally infinities of such NONEXISTENT ( my void) areas from which new dimensions can spring "So what do u make of this ?"
 
Barrie Now Comments: Excellent quote to advance the discussion. You ask me what I make of the excerpt. In order to answer you as best as I can, let me give the fuller version to keep it all in context:

Seth (Session 338): "The beginning of your physical universe occurred when conscious energy directed enough of its attention (long pause) in what was generalized dimension, to spark the formation of physical properties. The creation was just that. The first explosion of psychic energy in an ungeneralized dimension sparked the birth of specifics.

Barrie Comments: First, let's examine what "generalized" means. It means not specific; not limited to a particular area. More specifically, "Made general; especially: Not highly differentiated biologically nor strictly adapted to a particular environment."

To me, and to use a metaphor, this means that the "physical universe occurred when conscious energy directed enough of its attention in what was" a dimension that was not adapted to anything yet. It was like a blank canvas awaiting the painting to be painted upon it. It was not "differentiated."

As I see it, not differentiated" means that it was still in a raw form of oneness—like a blob of pizza dough not yet made into a pizza; like a canvass that is still all white, awaiting its paint of many colors.

So, the physical universe began with conscious energy focused on this white canvass that was the first stage of the physical universe.

Seth Continues: "Before this the generalized dimension was simply nonexistent, a vacuum, which consciousness had not yet filled. Since consciousness or action can never fully materialize itself, there are literally infinities of such nonexistent areas from which new dimensions can spring.

Barrie Comments: So, before the existence of this "generalized dimension" there was a vacuum, and the generalized dimension did not exist. Seth is NOT saying there that there was nonexistence. He is saying that the generalized dimension did not exist. I believe this is an important distinction.

That said, according to my Merriam-Webster app dictionary, vacuum is a space that has no matter in it yet. In this case, no physical matter in it yet. According to Seth, consciousness can never fully materialize itself. So, therefore, it has an intrinsic need for this empty space, this vacuum, into which it can materialize itself--make itself physical—make a "generalize dimension" in order to begin the physical existence of the physical universe itself. As a metaphor, I see this consciousness needing a balloon within which to breathe its air and blow it up, as in expand it into a larger shape. The empty balloon is the vacuum; the air filling up the balloon is the physical universe. Or, as another metaphor, there was a table with nothing on it. Consciousness put a blob of dough on it. This blob is the generalized dimension. The blob will be used to make a pizza. The pizza is the physical universe.

I notice that Seth has not used the term "void" yet. According to my dictionary, "void" may mean an absolute emptiness; a vacuum may mean having no physical matter. These are two separate things, too. The question is, and it may not affect this discussion, are the terms "void" and "vacuum" also synonyms?

So far, from what I found, they may be synonymous, but not always. As one person put it, "A vacuum contains space, a void does not."

So, what do we know so far. We know that Seth said that before the generalized dimension existed it was nonexistent. It was a vacuum. He is not saying that nonexistence existed. It seems to me that there were many other nonphysical things existing, but in order to create the PHYSICAL UNIVERESE, consciousness had to create a receptacle in which to put it—for physical matter needs a "place" and "space" for it to be. The nonphysical does not need a place or space. But it still EXISTS.

So, Seth is not saying that there was total nonexistence. He IS saying that the generalized dimension into which consciousness would create the physical universe—did not exist until it was created.

We also know that Seth did not use the term "void," and Seth really cared about his word choices. So it remains unclear if Seth meant vacuum to be synonymous with void. To answer that we can look to Seth's other uses of both terms, but I will save that for later if necessary.

Seth Continues: "Consciousness or action forms all realities. What is not simply represents a possibility which consciousness may bring to life. (Long pause.)"

Barrie Comments: This seems important, too. "What is NOT" is actually a possibility. It is NOT nothingness, according to Seth; not a vacuum or a void...but it "represents a possibility which consciousness may bring to life." It is like a sleeping fetus that consciousness may give birth to.

Seth Continues: "Consciousness then formed out of itself a new dimension which was the physical one. The formation, the explosion, of energy, shattered consciousness into an infinity of parts, each with all the abilities in here within consciousness itself.

Barrie Comments: So, consciousness already exists. This, in itself, means there is no grand "void" existing because there already is consciousness existing. Consciousness, which is nonphysical, wanted to create a physical universe and so it plopped it out, so to speak. It needed a "place" and "space" upon which and within which to plop if out—and so it first needed to create the vacuum in which to plop the physical universe. To use another metaphor, it needed a bag into which to put the physical universe, and so it first made the bag, and then put the universe it in.

Seth Continues: From itself, therefore, and of itself, consciousness gave birth to its new dimension of experience, and then experienced what it had created, further extending itself and in turn bringing forth further possibilities of development.

Barrie Responds: To use a metaphor, consciousness made more pizza pies, hero sandwiches, spaghetti, and so on.

Seth Continues: "Consciousness therefore continually creates and maintains itself, and this includes the physical materialization, the properties of the dimension, and yet basically there is no difference between the creator in these terms and the created. Nor between inner reality, which forms physical matter, and physical objects themselves, for the atoms which are manipulated to form objects are themselves a portion of consciousness, and alive in those terms. They respond to emotional and psychic directives as the physical body responds to light."

Barrie Responds: As I see it, Seth says that you can't really separate consciousness from physical matter because physical matter is created by consciousness with the "stuff" of consciousness. And in the same manner, we as individuals create our personal physical environments with its physical objects, etc.

SUMMARY:  So, to summarize by now returning to your 2011 excerpt:

Paul Had Written (8-11-11): "More on seth + what i have termed void (+ so did he in a way he was able to) , sessions vol 8 , session 338 pg 19 ,, i quote , '' B4 this the generalised dimension was simply NONEXISTENT , A VACUUM , which consciousness had not filled . Since cons's or action can never fully materialise itself , there r literally infinities of such NONEXISTENT ( my void) areas from which new dimensions can spring "So what do u make of this ?"
 
BARRE SUMMARIZES: This means that consciousness wanted to express itself physically and there was no place into which to plop the physical universe, and so a bag was created into which to put it. Or, there was no balloon into which to puff the physical universe, so a balloon was created. And there are infinite numbers of bags and balloons being created when needed in order for consciousness to express itself because consciousness can never fully express itself—and so the need never ends.

This doesn't mean that there are voids hanging around that we can go visit that are some higher level of existence.

Last metaphor, consciousness needed a physical canvass upon which to create its painting, the physical universe. So, first it had to create something to exist onto which to place the white canvass. No such easel was needed when things just remained nonphysical. But if you want to get into the game of physical universe creation, you need a canvass and a stand upon which to put it. Once that is done, you need to create the paint and the brushes, and then take the action and paint your painting, create your physical universe.

Now, you need more than one canvass. You need infinite canvasses. And with each one you need to create an easel to put them on; so you need infinite easels. But these stands do not just hang around waiting for the canvass to be put on them. They are created at the time they are needed. Therefore, there are infinite numbers of them...and canvasses...and paintings which are physical dimensions.


Be well,
Barrie

[LenKop]

I find this fascinating.


Thanks Paul for bringing it up (and, no, I'm not Dutch, I'm Aussie, and way too late in answering that question... )


And thanks to everyone who's chiming in.


I think that discussions such as these will always struggle to hit the mark, as we have our sequential based language to deal with. So we use analogy and metaphor to try to explain.


But how do we explain something that is beyond words? If the void states, or Buddhist jhana, or whatever you call them, are beyond thought, emotion, space/time, perception and non perception, and are part of all of these things at the same time, then it becomes very difficult to put them down on paper. Perhaps even the word void/vacuum falls way short of the experience (even the word experience might not be sufficient....)


The objective/subjective debate is an interesting one too. One of the first things that dawned on me, after reading the Seth material, is it becomes a nonsensical argument. Objects are simply reflections of the inner self. There is no separation. 'All That Is is more than the sum of its parts', we are the parts, we are the reflection of the greater self, which is a reflection of an even greater, so on and so on. Then how can there be an objective vs subjective debate? There is only the Source, which we all are. And the different focuses within.


There is also the assumption of what Seth would have continued to write if Jane had lived longer. Here we can assume anything. but if we look into the work we have, most of it is rooted in creation. You create your own reality. We co-create our own realities. From the minute, to the mass, most of the material is focused on our creative power, and getting in touch with our selves in order to create more wonderful lives. Perhaps Seth didn't mention voids and vacuums that often because it didn't really benefit us, or he had no great experience in the topic, or Jane wasn't forthcoming, or he knew about them but thought they were rubbish, or.....who knows? That list can go on. We have what we have, build on it, interpret it, and help others in any way we can.


As for how well understood the Seth material is by us, well I think I understand it quite well. As I believe others do too. How's life? If you are applying it well, you'll be creating a wonderful reality for yourself and those around you. I think the word 'deeper' is quite misleading. But sometimes necessary. And scary for many who approach these ideas in the early stages. So if your new here, or new to the metaphysical themes, relax. Looking for a void, or searching for enlightenment, going into other dimensions or exploring out of body, is all well and good, but there is no greater or lesser in any other existence. LOVE IS ALL.


I'm not personally interested in the vacuum ideas. I find it impractical in my daily life. Also in the larger scheme, it seems a strange pursuit to me now, and I can't find an honest intent in myself that desires it. Maybe that will change. Although I did pursue it many years ago, particularly when I found the Zen masters teachings. But now I far prefer the expansive side. It's more fun. After all, The Source is creative. It created the void/vacuum, it created time/space, probabilities, and all the multitudinous frameworks therein. Now if I spend my time going back to the void, then I imagine the next step is toward the Source....then what? Just start creating something again? Well, why not just create here and now anyway? If the result is to feel the moments point of power, then the assumption is we can't do that in our day to day lives. Why do I need to visit the void to learn how to live in the moment?

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

LK
 

[barrie]

Hi Len,

Seth does talk of a void, but it is not a state of non-being. These terms can all be confusing because of our "normal, everyday" use of them or understanding of them. As I see it, people kind of blend together the following concepts, as they understand them: The VOID versus NONBEING versus NIRVANA versus NOTHINGNESS versus a VACUUM.

Seth has spoken on each of them. Here are some examples (I have put the key words in BOLD CAPS for emphasis only):

SETH ON VOID
Seth (Session 453):"The planetary system of which we spoke in our last session was the first one within your universe, when you are speaking in terms of time.

"It is very difficult to explain to you that the universes that you see, the stars and planets that you view, are one-dimensional, comparatively speaking. You only perceive the portions of them that are apparent within your own system of reality.

"You are seeing shadows upon a blank and a black screen. The three- dimensional system is like a shadow of realities that you do not perceive. 

"(Pause.) 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.

"The VOID, in other terms, can therefore be compared to a mind, and who can predict what images or thoughts will be given birth there? There are as I have told you, many, indeed countless such systems, and yet within them all there is identity, and there is direction.

"This vast VOID, this infinite mind, came out of another that was greater than itself. (Pause, smile.) The possibilities that have come to reality within this universal system have each given birth to other systems and other realities, as one tree bears a thousand seeds. (Pause.) You yourselves through your own mental actions create realities of which you yourselves are unaware, and you give birth to more than physical children.

"You do not understand the dimensions into which your thoughts drop, for they continue their own existence, and others look up to them and view them like stars. Now I am telling you that your own dreams and thoughts and mental actions appear to the inhabitants of other systems like the stars and planets within your own; and those inhabitants do not perceive what lies within and behind the stars in their own heavens.


SETH ON NON-BEING:

Seth (Session 426): "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."

Seth (ESP Class, 6-5-73): "Being and NON-BEING are aspects of each other. NON-BEING exists.
Life and death are aspects of each other, like two sides of a coin. When you look at one side of the coin you call it life. When you look at the other side of the coin you call it death. When you look at one side, you call it being. When you look at the other side, you call it NON-BEING. In the terms of which you are speaking, they both exist -- and they both are. NON-BEING is not only latent being, in your terms, but being in an entirely different kind of dimension. To you, it only becomes being when you perceive it in your reality, but it is always being. So the terms are used in your context, NON-BEING is that reality that you do not perceive, and it is not meaningful now, in your now, for you. Life is NON-BEING on the other side of the coin, then. Think of that!"

Seth (ESP Class; 1-22-74): "God manifests himself through what you are. And if he wanted always to be one, and not individualistic, then he would have remained latent and never materialized in individual form. In certain terms, these glasses are a manifestation of what God is, as you are a manifestation of what God is. And through understanding the infinite validity of your own individuality, do you therefore glorify All That Is, and to the extent that you deny your individuality, do you deny what God is. If God wanted to be a nebulous, psychological cloud of NON-BEING, so would he be. You cannot find God by denying the vitality of your being. You cannot find Him by trying to hide in a NIRVANA, by trying to bury your individuality in a NON-BEING.

Barrie Comments: So, the state of "NON-BEING" that Seth would accept as existing—is NOT one of "NOTHINGNESS" or of a "VOID"—but rather a "state in which probabilities and possibilities are known, anticipat­ed, but blocked from all expression."


SETH ON NIRVANA:

Seth (ESP Class, 3-10-70):"You are already a part of All That Is, and you cannot disentangle yourself from that reality. There is no NIRVANA if you mean by NIRVANA a state in which your individuality is lost and gobbled in a great fish of a god that consumes you as the whale consumed Jonah.

"Instead you see, your individuality is used and developed. For your individuality means that there is one more highly unique, original way by which consciousness can express itself. And to lose that individuality, my dear friend, would mean that god had lost one of his voices, and that god had become deaf in one way and that one tone was forever lost."

Seth (ESP Class, 8-14-73): "Now, if you will excuse me, there is nothing more deadly than NIRVANA. At least your Christian concept gives you some twilight hopes of a deadly and boring paradise, where at least your individuality can realize itself, and NIRVANA offers no such comforts. Instead, it offers you the annihilation of your individuality in a bliss that destroys the integrity of your being. Run from such bliss!"

Seth (ESP Class, 7-17-73):
Class Transcript: (A guest for the evening, had been speaking about the ego and the annihilation of the ego. Seth joined the conversation:)

Seth: "There is a very ancient old ego here that has simply refused to be annihilated. But you are indeed playing with terms. The self that you know now, whatever you want to call it, that self is not annihilated. It is inviolate. It is not swallowed by a super god or by a super un-god or in feelings of bliss in heaven or NIRVANA, it is not destroyed by a hell even of your own making. You cannot get rid of yourselves so easily.

Seth (ESP Class, 1-29-74): "I return you to your self. Ruburt returns you to your self. But beyond that here is indeed a new framework, in your terms, ladders that you can climb that lead you not from mountain to austere mountain of dogma and denials, not from NIRVANA to NIRVANA of denial and NON-BEING, but instead, steps that are alive and growing that lead you to the further reaches of yourself; steps not created by a god or a devil or a guru, but sent out and projected by you through the centuries; steps born of your living selves and leading you into the knowledge of your ever growing beings. And so therefore with joy do I speak to you."

Seth (Session 637): "The you that you consider yourself is never annihilated. Your consciousness is not snuffed out, nor is it swallowed, blissfully unaware of itself, in some NIRVANA. You are as much a part of NIRVANA now as you will ever be."

Seth (Session 647): The concept of NIRVANA (see the 637th session in Chapter Nine) and the idea of heaven are two versions of the picture, the former being one in which individuality is lost In the bliss of undifferentiated consciousness, and the latter one in which still-conscious individuals perform mindless adoration. Neither theory contains an understanding of the functions of the conscious mind, or the evolution of consciousness or, for that matter, certain aspects of greater physics. No energy is ever lost. The expanding universe theory* applies to the mind as well as to the universe.


SETH ON NOTHINGNESS:

Seth (Session 534): "Consciousness does not refresh itself in sleep. It is merely turned in another direction. Consciousness does not sleep then in those terms and while it may be turned off it is not like a light. Turning it off does not extinguish it in the way that a light disappears when a switch is turned. Following the analogy, if consciousness were like a light that belonged to you, even when you switched it off, there would be a sort of twilight, but not darkness. The spirit, therefore, is never in a state of NOTHINGNESS, with its consciousness extinguished It is very important to understand that consciousness is never extinguished."

Seth (Session 329): Look where nothing seems to be, for no place is truly empty. Where there appears to be nothing, there will be no distortion. Within that seeming NOTHINGNESS, reality can show itself if you know how to look. That which appears full, that space which appears full, is misleading, for reality is already given to a rigid form.


SETH ON VACUUM:
(Barrie Note: Seth only uses this term to mean "something is not there yet." I find no use of it to anywhere in the material to mean something like void, nothingness, etc. Also, Seth uses this term only a handful of times, when not referring to a vacuum cleaner. I will put ALL EXAMPLES that I can find below:

Seth (Session 338): "The beginning of your physical universe occurred when conscious energy directed enough of its attention (long pause) in what was generalized dimension, to spark the formation of physical properties. The creation was just that. The first explosion of physic energy in an ungeneralized dimension sparked the birth of specifics. Before this the generalized dimension was simply nonexistent, a VACUUM, which consciousness had not yet filled. Since consciousness or action can never fully materialize itself, there are literally infinities of such nonexistent areas from which new dimensions can spring.

Seth (Session 511): What I will tell you has been told before throughout the centuries, and given again when it was forgotten. I hope to clarify many points that have been distorted through the years. And I offer my original interpretation of others, for no knowledge exists in a VACUUM, and all information must be interpreted and colored by the personality who holds it and passes it on. Therefore I describe reality as I know it, and my experience in many layers and dimensions.

Seth (Session 620): Such a person would have to believe that an unhealthy condition was the best way to serve another purpose. Other means would seem closed to him because of various personal beliefs that would form a VACUUM in his experience-that is, he would see no other way, perhaps, to achieve the same end.

Seth (Deleted Session; 12-3-73): "He is so used to automatically negative suggestions that to say nothing to himself leaves a VACUUM. But here he can say now instead: "It is not necessarily so. Perhaps I can move easier. I'll try it," which allows a breathing space..."

Seth (Session 708, Deleted Portion): "He (Ruburt) was afraid that despite his efforts he could not get better. Now you also have shared that belief strongly enough in any case so that your joint beliefs merged. His symptoms represent for him the one point of VACUUM, comparatively speaking, where the acceleration that has otherwise occurred has not as yet clearly penetrated; and jointly they represent the area in which your combined beliefs have not caught up to your knowledge.

[Sena]

"Now, if you will excuse me, there is nothing more deadly than NIRVANA. At least your Christian concept gives you some twilight hopes of a deadly and boring paradise, where at least your individuality can realize itself, and NIRVANA offers no such comforts. Instead, it offers you the annihilation of your individuality in a bliss that destroys the integrity of your being. Run from such bliss!"

barrie, thanks for this quote.

[barrie]

You're welcome, Sena.
It is a great quote!
I agree.
Be well and happy,
Barrie.

[BethAnne]

My subjective Voidness is being in a quiet receptive Awareness to hear the Music of the Spheres.

[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.

Paul ;  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 .

[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 few place 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 mention much about the void as you see it because it doesn't exist as YOU believe it to be.

So, are you now saying that Seth wouldn't understand you, too? 

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, etc etc.

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

Also, in Session 45, Seth also says that when we are hypnotized we enter the spacious present.
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. Or perhaps would you like to elaborate? I also believe you find so many people not "understanding you" because they don't believe what you say or agree with you. It so happens that what you say may sometimes actually makes little sense when looked at seriously.. Or perhaps, it is just that everyone, including Seth and Jane, don't understand the "depths" of your comments.

[voidypaul]

    Ok Barrie here goes ;

   Barrie ; Barrie Responds: As i see it, Seth didn't mention much about the void as you see it because it doesn't exist as YOU believe it to be.

   Paul ; Seth did not mention much about the void because he has not been there , he got all of his information from Seth 2 who is , has + always will be a formless being . Seth himself did not origionate the Seth material .
          Again Barrie this is not some belief structure i am talking about , it is experience , so please try + cut out the belief rubbish you keep throwing at me . Ta .


   Barrie ; So, are you now saying that Seth wouldn't understand you, too? 

   Paul ; Nope , only you don't understand it .Seth would understand but he is not here to say so is he .

   Barrie ;   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 ;   Well , if you had read the quotes i have given you on the undifferentiated field that i have posted you on several occaisions then you might begin to understand what i am talking about concerning the 'universal system'. I do not need to add to Seth's description at this time because you do not even understand what Seth has said about it yet .
            No Seth has not been outside of this universal system , + yes i have . Seth has never claimed to have been outside of the univ'l sys' + into the formless realms/ levels/ field . He had to have Seth2 to help him understand it , i had the Christ personality whom Seth quite readily admits is a much more advanced personality than he is + to quote  ; vol 5 , sess 203 ,
                                      ''your Christ (+ he uses caps to show his respect for this personality whereas he uses gods to describe other advanced personalities apart from ATI) had abilities which i still do not have ,,, etc.

           I have read everything in the early sessions on Seth 2 (+ more), which just about contains all of it Barrie , or enough to have a good working knowledge , ok .


   Barrie ;    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, etc etc.


   Paul ;   Barrie sometimes you can be an ass . Of course we are all a part of the sp' pr' but,,, you do not have  complete experience of the sp' pr' as if you did you would not be on this physical plane . Only ATI has complete immersion into the sp' pr' + i only exp'd it once in a complete manner .    All of what you describe above is simply partial exp' of the sp' pr' + completely fragmentary as , if you did have a complete exp' it would completely + entirely blow your tiny egotistical mind to smithereens , Even i had to go outside of this physical system (+ leave my body + brain in a suspended state) to be able to safely exp' it , there is no other way .
            You quoted Seth :
                                 One of the eight root assumptions of F2 is that "the spacious present is here more available to the perceptions (Seth Session 284).

                +         ;
                                 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.


       Yes , he says more available + operative , but not completely available , use your english skills please Barrie .
       Also , you must read the sess' i just gave you wherein Seth also describes the sp' pr' + how it can be experienced fully if only for an instant + to achieve this one must go completely outside of the univ' sys' , within which F2 is contained . Freakin well do your homework Barrie , i have .

       also ;  who the fck told you that when we blink out of this reality we are in the sp' pr' . As i understand it , Seth said that when we blink out of this rea'y we are then in the negative univ'/field + that this is a part of the 3 field sys' that makes up the whole of this univ' sys' .

   Barrie ;   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. Or perhaps would you like to elaborate? I also believe you find so many people not "understanding you" because they don't believe what you say or agree with you. It so happens that what you say may sometimes actually makes little sense when looked at seriously.. Or perhaps, it is just that everyone, including Seth and Jane, don't understand the "depths" of your comments.


   Paul ;   My 1st void state IS Seth's first step outside of the uni' sys' + into the undifferentiard field , OK.
           It is actually you who are being absurd in displaying your complete ignorance of Seth's undiff' field Barrie even tho i have given you these quotes several times . You are now demoted to the bottom of class + next time you will be in detention , hahahahah .  No i do not need to elaborate , just read + digest the Seth quotes .

            Not many people understand what i am talking about because they too have not read + digested Seth on the undiff' field , okay .  You have obviously not looked at what i have been trying to say seriously Barrie but instead have tried to vie with me on your own lack of knowledge of the Seth material .

           Also , i throw down the gauntlet to any sethie who thinks they have a good working knowledge of Seth on these topics , come + enjoy the fun but if your knowledge is as partial as Barrie's then i will , as gracefully as i can , rip you to shreds,  OK .

             Put that in your pipe Barrie .       peace , paul

[Sena]

One of the key principles of Buddhism is "dependent origination", referring to the chain of cause and effect in which humans are trapped in the state of Samsara. This is depicted in the following diagram:


One can see from this diagram that "consciousness" arises from fabrication, which in turn arises from ignorance. On the upward swing of the circle, Nirvana results from the "cessation" of consciousness.
In contrast, my understanding of Seth's teaching is that consciousness is primary and immortal, with everything else arising from it.

[barrie]

Hi Paul

Barrie Wrote:  As i see it, Seth didn't mention much about the void as you see it because it doesn't exist as YOU believe it to be.

    Paul ; Seth did not mention much about the void because he has not been there , he got all of his information from Seth 2 who is , has + always will be a formless being . Seth himself did not origionate the Seth material .

Barrie NOW Responds: This is NOT TRUE AT ALL. Where did you get this? This is nonsense. I'd love to see how or what your beliefs interpreted here.
............

Paul    Again Barrie this is not some belief structure i am talking about , it is experience , so please try + cut out the belief rubbish you keep throwing at me . Ta .

Barrie NOW Responds: I have explained that the BELIEFS come into play when you interpret what Seth says AND when you interpret your experiences as well. This is not "belief rubbish" – it is the nature of beliefs and the human experience.

.................................

    Barrie Wrote ; So, are you now saying that Seth wouldn't understand you, too? 

    Paul ; Nope , only you don't understand it .Seth would understand but he is not here to say so is he .

Barrie NOW Responds: Do you know over the years how many people have said something exactly like that when they don't find what they believe in the Seth material. It is quite common.  I've heard. People come up with theories and it is not actually in the Seth material—and they come up with various theories:

1.      Seth WOULD HAVE said what I am now saying but the people back then couldn't have handled the full truth.
2.      Seth WOULD HAVE said what I am now saying but Jane did not let it come thru.
3.      Seth WOULD HAVE said what I am now saying, but he didn't have the time because Jane died.

You are doing the same thing, now, Paul. But throwing in that Seth2 nonsense is amazingly wrong as well.
................................


Barrie Had Written ;   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 ;   Well , if you had read the quotes i have given you on the undifferentiated field that i have posted you on several occaisions then you might begin to understand what i am talking about concerning the 'universal system'. I do not need to add to Seth's description at this time because you do not even understand what Seth has said about it yet .
Barrie NOW Responds: Perhaps, Paul, your beliefs about Seth said, are just that. Your beliefs. You also seem to believe that your beliefs are facts...and if someone disagrees with you...well...they are just wrong. Another common reaction of some people when discussing things they try to insist is found in the Seth material one way or another.

Paul Continues: No Seth has not been outside of this universal system , + yes i have .

Barrie Responds: I guess that sort of says it all. I would say that we all have been outside of this universal system. It is part of the nature of being human.

Paul Continues:  Seth has never claimed to have been outside of the univ'l sys' + into the formless realms/ levels/ field . He had to have Seth2 to help him understand it ,

Barrie Responds: Where do you get this Seth2 nonsense from?

Paul Continues:  i had the Christ personality whom Seth quite readily admits is a much more advanced personality than he is + to quote  ; vol 5 , sess 203 ,  ''your Christ (+ he uses caps to show his respect for this personality whereas he uses gods to describe other advanced personalities apart from ATI) had abilities which i still do not have ,,, etc.

Barrie Responds: Here you go again, pouring forth your beliefs about what Seth's words mean. Yes, I remember that quote. What does that have to do with any of this? What does this have to do with Seth not having ever been outside of the universal system? It is such a silly thing. You really seem to just make things up as you go along—based on your beliefs concerning your interpretations of some of Seth's comments

Paul Continues: I have read everything in the early sessions on Seth 2 (+ more), which just about contains all of it Barrie , or enough to have a good working knowledge , ok .

Barrie Responds: Then please enlighten me, where does Seth say that he gets all his information from Seth2? And, also, Seth2 does exist outside of our universal system—as does Seth and all of us.

...................................

Barrie Had Written;    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, etc etc.

Paul:  Barrie sometimes you can be an ass . Of course we are all a part of the sp' pr' but,,, you do not have  complete experience of the sp' pr' as if you did you would not be on this physical plane .

Barrie Responds: Let's get back to what you originally said. You left out your comment that I was responding to:

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

Barrie Responds: First, there is a difference between being in the spacious present all the time—and having the complete experience of the spacious present.

I NEVER said that we have the complete experience of the spacious present.
I DID say that we are in the spacious present all the time.

Like you seem so often  to do, you are just making that up or misinterpreting my words based on your beliefs.

Also, I believe that you were explaining why it was so important to go back to the void. And I was saying you don't have to go back there, we ar already there. Please correct me if I am mistaken about what you meant by "on the other side of the void is the spacious present" and why you said it

Paul Continues: Only ATI has complete immersion into the sp' pr' + i only exp'd it once in a complete manner . 

Barrie Responds: And you don't this is your belief system at work? I find it funny that you believe, along with ATI, you have experienced it once.  In any case, who said anything about complete immersion?

Also, I believe you have contradicted yourself, my Lord.

Paul Had Written: "you do not have  complete experience of the sp' pr' as if you did you would not be on this physical plane"

Paul Had Written: ": Only ATI has complete immersion into the sp' pr' + i only exp'd it once in a complete manner."

Barrie NOW Comments: So, please explain. IF you have complete experience of the spacious present, you would not be on this physical plane—yet YOU have had the complete experience once. Well, you ARE on this physical plane. And IF you are on it, after so-called experiencing it once—then maybe many others also have that experience—and maybe more than once—maybe twice—maybe hundreds of time. OR, is the a time limit—that if you experience the spacious present more than X times, THEN you would not be on the physical plane?

Paul Continues: All of what you describe above is simply partial exp' of the sp' pr' + completely fragmentary as , if you did have a complete exp' it would completely + entirely blow your tiny egotistical mind to smithereens ,

Barrie Responds: You seem to believe that your beliefs and subjective experiences are somehow actual facts and that others cannot grasp what you see if they disagree or present another view. That in itself is pretty amazing—the degree of this lack of empathy. Let's face it, you actually have no idea how my mind would react to anything. All you have some idea of, is how YOUR mind would react to things. I hope you can understand that other people may actually have other reactions than you do to things? AND other beliefs concerning their experiences than you do.

In another post you stated that Seth is no guru, and I fully agree. Yet, ironically, you seem to act just like a guru.

Paul Continues: Even i had to go outside of this physical system (+ leave my body + brain in a suspended state) to be able to safely exp' it , there is no other way .

Barrie Responds: Even you? I suppose if even you can do it, even other people can as well...and even Seth can, too.
................................

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

Barrie Quoted 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.
 
Paul Responds to the Above Quotes: Yes , he says more available + operative , but not completely available , use your english skills please Barrie .

Barrie NOW Responds: First, you said that the spacious present was on the other side of the void. Seth is saying it is readily available in F2—which we cannot escape having access to. He says NOTHING about completely available or not, using those terms.

He says that in F2, the spacious present is more available than in F1. YOU are adding all this nonsense about it being completely available, etc. You are just making it up because it sounds right to you. That is called "BELIEFS." 

I believe my English skills are good enough to realize that you are just randomly adding things to Seth's words or taking things away from them—to fit the beliefs you are trying to foist upon other people. Nobody said anything one way or the other about it being completely available or not. You are making up what that means—as if that IS what it means.

I would say that it is COMPLETELY available when we are "in" it. That is how I interpret both of those quotes and all the other things I have read about the spacious present—and what my intuition tells me as well.

Sorry, I have to end for now. It is 6 am and I really should go to sleep. I will finish the rest tomorrow.

[voidypaul]

Senafernando  :  One can see from this diagram that "consciousness" arises from fabrication, which in turn arises from ignorance. On the upward swing of the circle, Nirvana results from the "cessation" of consciousness.
In contrast, my understanding of Seth's teaching is that consciousness is primary and immortal, with everything else arising from it.


   Paul   ;   Hi Senafernando (can i call you Sen, as my typing skills are rather rudimentary + the less the better for me, ta), basically + in a broad sense the Buddists are correct in  saying that con's is a fabrication + a compounded state but personally i find them a little bit too negative about the life we do live + tend to relegate it in favour of the attainment of Nirvana . Yes i also agree that Nirvana results from cessation but as i said before i do not believe that Nirvana is an end in itself , but yes , it is an integral part of ATI . In my experience cessation is what i have termed suspension/nonbeing of con's which then leads on to further intangible formless states of being as con's reawakens from 'cessation'/nonbeing + makes its return to either the physical realms or goes on to other 'finer' frequencies or even into the formless realms . As i said i have been barred from several Buddist sites because my exp' of jhana (my void states of con's) contains extra dimensions of expansion + contraction that are not in the jhanas but then returns to jhana states from infinite con's  up to + including cessation . But then again for me there is the reawakening of the con's (which is quite a lenghy + involved process of gradual expansion) until it then encounters that void state just prior to its immersion in the spacious present + the 'journey' back thru the immaterial realms + into physical reality , etc , etc .   

               I wholeheartedly agree with Seth + the mahayanan's (i think?) who believe that the self is immortal + eternal + that cessation is not the end . Cessation/nonbeing  (my suspension/nonbeing) is an 'attainment' in which all perception is brought to an absolute + utter standstill + far too feaky for these sethians to digest .

                              peace , paul           




    hi barrie  ,  my god you are dogged + persistent , + that is actually a compliment as no other sethians have the determination or stamina to stay the course with me .

                   Please , please read the quotes i gave you (or anyone on this site) ((as i am sure you still have not)) as Seth here deals with the first step into the undiff' field (my 1st void state) + then full immersion into the sp' pr' .          I'm sure it will help + it will help me too , to not be so hacked off at you because it is so important to this topic .          As i say if ANY sethie is good enough to do so then they will recieve valuable insight into this conversation + be better able to understand what the fck i am talking about ,  come on you sethies , someone make the effort .        VOl 7 ; pg 48 sess' 287
                                                                       '' this is what happens when you''

           Without it , you Barrie , + everyone else on this site are ill equipped to debate with me  esp' as to what Seth has or has not said concerning this tpoic .   Go to it someone + then you have a very valuable key to either agree or disagree with me , if not all of you are nincompoops + don't even understand what Seth has or has'nt said . You do not even need to be qualified or experienced in this area but you will , i assure you , be comprehending this topic to some quite important degree.     Go for it ..........................................

And actually it is not quite fair or right that you do not , as i have kindly requested that you do so on quite a few occasions + i am v frustrated that no one has been kind enough to show a little respect in this sense . Even Seth would be appalled that his work is so easily dismissed or overlooked .

                   So i will leave it here for the time being as i do really need someone to get a handle on this + the only way , is to read the Seth quotes .

                   peace , paul

   

[barrie]

4-11-16 (1:35 am, NYC time:

Paul, I'm continuing with my response from your past post to me, now once removed. I am separating out my response concerning the spacious present, and how we are in it right now with the help of the blinking process--and we do not need to go to the void in order to experience it:

Hi Paul, these are your two quotes that I am now responding to:

1. Paul Had Earlier Written: "You (Len) 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."

2. Paul Then Wrote (to Barrie): who the fck told you that when we blink out of this reality we are in the sp' pr' . As i understand it , Seth said that when we blink out of this rea'y we are then in the negative univ'/field + that this is a part of the 3 field sys' that makes up the whole of this univ' sys' .

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. 

REMEMBER, as with you and everyone—when it comes to Seth quotes--I share my BELIEFS about what Seth has said. My interpreations are based on my BELIEFS as are yours and everyone—but I will gladly try to explain WHY I have those beleifs and where they come from.

Let me explain how I come up with that we are always in the Spacious Present and when we blink in and out of this F1, we are blinking in and out of F2, which is the nonlinear spacious present. So, here is my thinking on my "evidence" supporting that what I am saying IS also supported in the Seth material.

Seth (Session 41): "Actuality there is only a spacious present, so spacious that it cannot be explored all at once in your terms, hence your arbitrary division of it into larger rooms of past, present and future. Again, there is only the spacious present. You are in the spacious present now. You were in the spacious present in your yesterday and you still will not have traveled through it in your tomorrow, or in eons of tomorrows... On your plane there must be physical manipulation. This gives you also the illusion of past and future...

Barrie Comments: We are in the "spacious present now", as Seth says. We are always in it. Our plane is F1. We don't consciously recognize when we are operating in the spacious present because we can only perceive F1 with our five senses...yet we ae also ALWAYS in F2 or the spacious present.

Seth Continues: "In the spacious present as it exists in actuality beyond shadow, all things that have existed still exist, and all things that shall exist in your tomorrow already do exist. You on your plane cannot experience such reality except in a very limited manner, and you cannot experience such reality spontaneously, and spontaneously the quality of the spacious present.   

Barrie Comments: While we are in F2, we experience it, or the spacious present, as best as we are able to, as humans still "tied" to F1 as well—living our focal personalities.

Seth (Private Session, 10-24-77, God of Jane) Framework 2 (F2) 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 comments: Seth says that in F2 the "spacious present is operative" – To me this me that in F2 we are operating within the spacious present. In F2 is where the spacious present is in operation, and that is why it is capable of being used. That is "where" simultaneous time is the norm; where linear time does not exist. To me, this means that we are in the spacious present while blinking out into F2, or dreaming, or having our ongoing telepathic communications. And we are also thee "NOW," as we go about our daily waking routines—for during this ongoing, forever blinking process—we experience what seems to be to our five senses—the continuity of the physical plane and of our physical experiences

So let me further explain how this relates to our blinking and flickering in out of physical reality? This is how:

In order to ALWAYS be in the spacious present and at the same time to always perceive that we ALWAYS here in F1—we blink in and out so quickly that we don't physically notice with our five senses.

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. This blinking never stops. In each instant when we are 'back" focused in F1, we reconjure up all of our physical environment in accordance with our telepathic agreements of where objects should be, etc. These ongoing telepathic agreements as to where the physical objects should be placed and what chocies of action we should take--all occur in the spacious present or F2. Thus, we always have one metaphorical foot in F1 and one in F2—as we sit and eat our slice of pizza in the local pizza place.

Now, we don't really return to F1 for we never really leave or left it. These are just words to describe the process in physical terms. To carry that point further, we actually do NOTHING that we seem to be doing while in physical reality...because physical reality itself is really NOTHING as it appears to be to our physical senses.

So, as Seth says and as I say and explain: We are IN the spacious 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 spacious 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. In all of these "conditions" or "interactions" or "experiences" linear time does not exist. These "place" or "experiences" where linear time does not exist IS the spacious present...that is why Seth says we "are in it now."

(Seth (Session 684): "(Y)our present is a poised balance affected as much by the probable future as the probable past...At no time, as a rule, is your body not here to you...In a manner of speaking, your bodies blink off and on like lights. Their reality fluctuates, from your standpoint. For that matter, so does the physical universe...

"Now the same applies to these units of consciousness—and to atoms, molecules, electrons, and other such phenomena. The world literally blinks off and on. This reality of fluc­tuation in no way bothers your own feeling of consistency, however. The "holes (spelled) of nonexistence" are plugged up by the process of selectivity. This process chooses significances then, again, around which experience is built, and around which "life" is felt. The very sensations of one kind of life then automatically set up barriers against other such "world‑schemes" (hyphen) that do not correlate with their own."

Barrie Note: The "process of selectivity" is where and when we choose what to physicalize, where we experience the exploration of various infinite probabilities outside of linear time; and choose what has "significance" and then build our experiences around them, which is felt as our physical life. Or, in other words, we choose which probable realities we want to physicalize—and we do this each moment as we blink in and out of F2 where we are then operating in the spacious present.

Seth (ESP Class, 10-6-70): "Physically you believe that you are here and so you are here but other portions of your identity are in other places and other times, and I use those terms very loosely...You create times and places. They are tools by which you learn to know yourselves. They are methods that you use as a part of all consciousness to form new experiences and new developments. You all dwell in dimensions that know no place and no time...

Barrie Comments: We are not always here, for we are always simultaneously elsewhere—we are in both because we blink in and out. And when we are "in" these other nonphysical places, we "form our new experiences & developments" because we are operating in the spacious present and make our telepathic agreements which occur outside of linear time.

Seth says that we "dwell in places that know no space and no time." This is the spacious present—and it is thru the action of blinking that we both dwell "there" and we seemingly simultaneously dwell "here" in F1.

So to summarize, your point, Paul, as I understand it and correct me if I am mistaken, that we somehow need to return to the void in order to get to the spacious present,  is actually absurd, no offense, according to the Seth material, at least.

[Sena]

I wholeheartedly agree with Seth + the mahayanan's (i think?) who believe that the self is immortal + eternal + that cessation is not the end . Cessation/nonbeing  (my suspension/nonbeing) is an 'attainment' in which all perception is brought to an absolute + utter standstill + far too feaky for these sethians to digest .

Paul,
I am happy to be called Sena as that is my first name. I have only a superficial knowledge of Mahayana, but my impression is that there are many schools such as the Tibetan and Nagarjuna. You may well be correct in stating that certain schools of Mahayana are of the view that "the self is immortal + eternal + that cessation is not the end ". What I wrote in my previous post is that according to my understanding of Seth, consciousness is immortal. This is not the same as saying the "self" is immortal. Which self are you referring to? It is obviously not the human ego. It is also probably not the individual personality of a particular incarnation. It could be the Higher Self, or what Seth refers to as the Entity from which individual personalities are incarnated. Or it could be All That Is which is immortal, but not perhaps unchanging.

You mention that you have been barred from several Buddhist sites. Was this because you were moving intellectually from Buddhism to Seth's teachings? Are you still going through this process? I don't consider myself a "sethian", but it is my impression that Seth presented a fairly self-contained philosophy and recommendations for dealing with life. It is not clear to me that void states, emptiness, or "sunyata" are an important part of Seth's teaching. It seems to me that those ideas could be distractions which could interfere with our attempts to put Seth's ideas into practice.
Best regards, Sena

[voidypaul]

Hi Sena ;

          Yes Sena , there are indeed many + varied schools of Buddhism + unfortunately there is much infighting amongst them as to who has the origional + best understanding of what the Buddha said . In my understanding of them , they too need a good shake up to get them back on track + reading from the same page so to spk' .

          Actually Sena , both the self + con's are synonymous , ATI is the origional self + He is also the origional con's ( but there are caveats to this , in that ATI knows that He has come from some other source + continually searches His own origins ) . Obviously ATI is a self (but not in our terms) , + obviously He is con's . He is the source of all con's + all selves . As Seth has said , con's is the direction in which the self looks  tho the self may be more than the direction in which the self looks ie , the entity is the greater self but our con's (ego) is less (functionally) than the entity . There is obviously a hierarchical structure apparent here which does not imply that one is better than the other .

          All selves + all con's are immortal + eternal + regardless if they expand to become greater selves or con's , the patterns + validity of even the ego con's are retained + allowed their freedom within the greater self + are never lost or diminished but follow their own paths . you or i may go on to become entitys in our own rights but the ego's which we once were are allways + will allways be nurtured + protected by the greater self/entity + given  infinite freedom + eternal validity in which to express themselves .

          I was barred from these sites (as i have not been from the Seth sites) for implying that there is more to jhana than i have ever read in any Buddhist literature + i was vilified + abused by many of them + even one of the site administrators had the audacity to use my personal email to contact me + ask me not to come back . This lead me to become somewhat concerned as to my personal safety + i have not gone back to any of the Buddhist forums.

          In my experience , there are several jhanas (my void states) between infinite space + infinite con's, + that these are to do with the energy potentials + multidimensionality of the self . The Buddhists i believe have the psychological potentials correct but for some reason they do not have the energy potentials which lead directly into the multidimensional aspects of the self .

          As i have claimed on several occasions , that i think Seth did not get into the void states because of Janes early demise .  They are (the void states) distractions to those sethies who need to work with belief systems to be able to allow themselves greater freedoms etc . But there are those of a deeply mystical nature who are able to allow themselves the greater freedom of an implicit + unadulterated faith so that they may transcend any + all limiting belief structures + enter into the undifferentiated area (Seths terms) of void con's (my terms).


         Oh , by the way Sena , of what ilk or presuasion of Buddhist (if any) are you ?

         Kindest regards , paul



        Barrie , I am getting to your profuse verbosity in good time me old fruit

   

[Sena]

Hi Paul, I am not a Buddhist. I was brought up a Roman Catholic. I take whatever teachings which help me to make sense of my existence on this planet.

[John Sorensen]

Paul, I have no interest in butting "egos" with you, it is a pointless endeavor. You assume many things about others views for no particular reason other than ignorance, claim to have already know / read any of the suggestions I made, then make a statement immediately afterward that shows you either did not read or did not comprehend anything from those stated works, then you accuse me of not understanding "jananananna" or whatever other word you care to throw out. I have not claimed to have superior knowledge or experiences to you, I only some suggestions to things which may be of use to you.


If you wish to continue arguing with people, PLEASE AT LEAST BE CIVIL rather than outright disrespectful.
I would question your belief around needing to be banned or removed from online communities, it is self-sabotaging behavior that when enacted stalls any dialogue you may attempt, along with any growth and shared understanding that may come of it, and reinforces your limiting belief to have to be right and prove others wrong, or claim anyone who has a different point of view simply doesn't understand your wisdom, or is not as smart as you.


It's arrogant and frankly annoying to read your posts, if you are going to keep talking, the please at least consider being nicer to people. [I can say the same thing about anything I write, and I mean it, not in some false-modesty way, but because at times it is true]


Persistence and Determination are my defining qualities, I  AM also extremely arrogant.
As are you Sir.

Your affirmation about religion shows you have clearly not read or understood the works of Ken Wilber.
If you did, you would know of new perspectives in consciousness that were not around NOR POSSIBLE even 100 years ago, and were never talked about in any Buddhist classical or any other world religious text for that matter.


I recommend you work on what Wilber and Carl Jung would call "Shadow Self" or "Cleaning Up", it's but one example of something not covered in ANY of the world religions, which you would know if you understood any of what Wilber had to say.
I know it's the area where I have the most work to do.


I don't understand a lot of Wilber's work, I just started reading him six months ago, along with criticisms of his work - but so far that is enough to get the basics. Six months of study on the Sutras of Patanjali was also sufficient time for me to learn what I needed to at the time, but that is text that could be studied for a lifetime and not fully understood. It's also one that has limited antiquated perspectives from the time it appeared in, as are similar texts.


We should not be limited by the limiting world views of people who lived hundreds if not thousands of years ago, nor should we mistake symbols for fundamental literal interpretations of anything from those world views.


Of course I may be wrong and you are free to disagree. I'm someone who can happily talk on many topics for many hours, but if you want to find people similar to yourself to talk to, try not pissing them off to start with, that works for me.