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
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???
Quote from: voidypaul on March 07, 2016, 04:50:06 PMWith 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." :)
Quote from: voidypaul on March 07, 2016, 04:50:06 PM
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.
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
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
Quote from: voidypaul on March 08, 2016, 12:29:02 PMJoe'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.
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 .
Quote from: voidypaul on March 10, 2016, 05:08:14 PMwhen 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.
Quote from: voidypaul on March 10, 2016, 05:08:14 PMHi 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 (http://drjoedispenza.com/) 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.
Quote from: voidypaul on March 10, 2016, 05:08:14 PMi 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").
Quote from: voidypaul on March 10, 2016, 05:08:14 PMYou 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXrl6vMStFk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXrl6vMStFk)
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.
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
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
Quote from: voidypaul on March 13, 2016, 07:22:06 AMif 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.
Quote from: voidypaul on March 13, 2016, 07:22:06 AMyep, 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.
Quote from: voidypaul on March 13, 2016, 07:22:06 AMIf 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.
Quote from: voidypaul on March 13, 2016, 07:22:06 AMafter 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.
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.
(http://www.aztecnm.com/aztec/ruins/AztecRuins4.jpg)
Quote from: BethAnne on March 22, 2016, 12:13:09 PMI'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 (http://www.shambhalamountain.org/great-stupa/visiting-the-stupa/) at Shambhala. It's beautiful and amazing.
I'd love to sit in the Kiva, so count me in!
The best site to reach me is my Facebook site: https://www.facebook.com/groups/177996360825/ (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.
Thanks Barrie.
LK
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
Your thoughts give a lot to ponder upon.
Does John Lilly's work resonate with you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaf4ojypgog (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaf4ojypgog)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9ju1RljBjY&spfreload=10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9ju1RljBjY&spfreload=10)
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
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience), psychoanalyst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalyst), psychonaut (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychonautics), philosopher, writer and inventor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly)
How does the Void apply practically in your life?
My interpretation of the Void seems to be where I create anew.
Quote from: BethAnne on March 29, 2016, 01:27:55 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience), psychoanalyst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalyst), psychonaut (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychonautics), philosopher, writer and inventor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly (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]
"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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQudGIk7MY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQudGIk7MY)
Quote from: John Sorensen on March 31, 2016, 02:09:53 AMInteresting 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...
Quote from: John Sorensen on March 31, 2016, 02:09:53 AMremember 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.
Quote from: BethAnne on March 31, 2016, 10:47:24 AMI'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...
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 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
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.
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
Quote from: voidypaul on April 05, 2016, 06:52:37 PMIt 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.
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
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
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... :D )
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
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.
Quote"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.
You're welcome, Sena.
It is a great quote!
I agree.
Be well and happy,
Barrie.
(http://mountainpat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/cosmic-eye1.jpg) (http://mountainpat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/cosmic-eye1.jpg)
My subjective Voidness is being in a quiet receptive Awareness to hear the Music of the Spheres.
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 .
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.
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.
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
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:
(http://secular-afterlife.info/images/dependent-origination-016.png)
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.
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.
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
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.
QuoteI 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
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
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.
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. ;)
Yoo hoo , Barrie , guess who . Looks like i'll have to put you straight on a few things .
Barrie said ; 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."
Paul ;
Ok so maybe i should say , that when one enters into viod + fulfills all intesities (Seth) inherent in the void or Seth's undiff' field (including nonbeing) then one will come into awareness of the initial void state created by ATI from which all other void states arise + will become con's aware of the sp'pr' as it exists in all sys' of manif', before returning to the physical sys' .
Oh , + sorry Len one does not need to go into viod to be able to live in the moment , uness you want that moment to be the sp'pr' .
Barrie ;
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.
Paul ;
i come up with these things because of my experience + the fact that the 3 field sys' + the undiff' field (my void) IS in the Seth mat'. The 3 field sys' is, 1. phys' reality/ field
2. the dream field
3. the antimatter or neg' field
These together form the univ'sys' in which we have our existence .
I have given you the quotes on Seths undiff' field 4 or 5 times now (i bet you still hav'nt read it) .
F2 is not the neg' or antimatter field + so is not the pulsation or blinking off that you spk of . F2 is something else entirely which i'm sure you do have a good knowledge of but not in this instance me old fruit .
Barrie ;
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.
Paul ;
Paul ;
You may want to interpret Seth's works Barrie + you may have good intentions based on your beliefs of what Seth has said but i am not interpreting Seths works , i am sticking to the same concepts that Seth has given but i have just presented them with a slightly different terminology + expanded upon the formless fields which i term F3 + which are the source of all the manifest fields + universes .
Like my 1st void state + Seths undiff' field , they are one and the same . And if you ever read the passages + quotes i have persistently given you about the undiff' field/area/levels Seth spks of , you wuold easly notice the direct similarities between my descrition of void as being inf' space internally/externally , formlesness + without any thuoghts or images being able to be percieved or manifested here whatsoever , more or less exactly as Seth describes it in his undiff' field . But you have not been repspectful enough to have read these passages + so you have gotten yourself into a right pickle . You even said to me that Seth had never mentioned void ever , + the same about the undiff' field + now you've gone + done it with your confusion about the neg' univ' + F2 which are entirely differnt things . I do forgive you Barrie as i would not keep coming back to hear you repeat your mistakes over + over again . I definately get a bit prickley when you refuse to read the quotes i have repeatedly given you + stand on your false belief that Seth never said any of these things when of course he obviously did .
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.
Paul ;
What i am talking about IS the con's recognition + immersion in the sp' pr' via what i call the void states of con's , for as Seth has said , before the creation of any univ' field or sys', con's had first to create the void or dimension in which it will exist . I understand what you are saying about us all being in the sp'pr' all of the time + i agree but this blinking off is NOT into the sp'pr' or F2 but the neg field .
If you had ever bothered to read the Seth quotes i gave you then you would see that Seth says that to get full awareness of the sp'pr' as it exists in this univ' sys' of manifestation , one must 'step' outside of this univ' sys' which includes F2 + into the undiff' field which is my 1st void state . Seth quite clearly states that when one first encounters the undiff' field it is as though one is in an inf' empty area (both internally + externally , my quote) . No thoughts or images can possibly exist here which is why it is so frightening to most people . I will try + find quotes sometime soon as i've been rather busy lately .
As i said , from my reading of Seth the blinking out is into the neg' or antimatter field (not into F2) , + that we spend as much 'time' nonexistent in the phys' field as we do manifest in it . And that the pulsations are to do with the creation of the atoms + antimatter , as pure energy comes into this univ' sys' . Also , this 3 field sys' is enclosed by energy which does not allow any further additions (at this time) a sort of repellant energy which i think Seth may have termed identifying particles , i'm not exactly sure of Seths terms here but the principle is the same + similar to Seths mental enclosures .
I think you have F2 + the neg' univ' mixed up somehow Barrie . F2 is where we have our non phys' selves + existences + the neg' field is the offshoot from the dreaming field .
All con's of whatever import has its existence in the sp'pr' but F2 is only a little closer to the sp'pr' + as Seth has said , one must go outside of this 3 field sys' to be able to have an exp' of the sp'pr' as it exists for us in this 3 fold univ' sys' . One must go all the way back to ATI's initial void creation (from which all other voids come from) to have an exp' of the sp'pr' as it exists in all sys' of reality .
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.
Paul ; Yes you've definately got this blinking in + out confused with F2 Barrie . Yes , we have existences in F2 simultaneously with our existence in F1 but that is simultaneous + not blinking off + on , there is a big difference here Barrie .
Barrie ;
Seth says that we "dwell in places that know no space and no time." This is the spacious present—
Paul ; No it's not Barrie , these are as i've said , simultaneous manifestations which all exist in the sp'pr' . But these places you talk of are NOT the sp'pr' they are simply portions of it .
You go on to say ;
and it is thru the action of blinking that we both dwell "there" and we seemingly simultaneously dwell "here" in F1.
Again Barrie this is your mistaken interpretation + absolutely nothing to do with the blinking off + on , you silly billy .
Barrie ;
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.
Paul ;
oh most definately i will + am correcting you Barrie on several of Seth's concepts . You must go into the undiff' field (my 1st void state) Seth spoke of in order to completely immerse yourself eventually in the sp'pr' but only as it exists for this univ' sys' . To experience the sp'pr' as it exists for all systems you must go to ATI's initial void state , + the dreaded nonbeing you cannot as yet fathom . This is done by 1st going into the undiff' field (1st void state) which IS formlesness + without any thoughts or images + from this level you must increase your concentration or go into a deeper or more intense intensity (as Seth puts it) to reach inf' con's + then on into a deeper multidimensional con's which further refines itself by further intensities or concentrations untill it achieves suspension + nonbeing (Buddhist cessation) . Nonbeing , being as close to ATI as one can get . You will then 'reawaken' to the 1st + primal void state created by ATI + through further intensities/concentrations in this primal void then come into the sp'pr' as it exists for all univ' manifestations .
The 1st void state is inf' formless space + Seth's 1st step into the undiff' field .
The 2nd void state is way beyond your ken at the moment Barrie but ultimately it is inf' con's .
Actually its quite absurd that your understanding of Seth on these topics is so partial + fragmentary old bean , as you are supposed to be one of the head honcho's in the Seth community as i understand it . God only knows what the rest of them are like or what they put out as Seth's teachings . Perhaps they are jolly nice fellows as i believe you are Barrie but that is another thing apart from knowledge of Seths concepts esp' on these topics . Again i offer an open invitation in particular to the top level of the sethian community to come + debate these issues with me if they dare .
Have fun with this won't you Barrie .
peace , paul
I've been overwhelmed with work and other things lately, but have still been finding time to keep track posts in this topic and others.
Thank you all for your contributions in this heady topic. And thank you all for expressing yourselves freely, but still being respectful of others (mostly). Barrie and Paul have obviously been enjoying sparring for years. I've been around the Internet for a while and I've seen a lot nasty things happen very quickly. So I'm especially appreciative of people who have differing opinions, beliefs, interpretations... and can still express themselves succinctly without breaking into a flat out brawl. That speaks volumes to the ilk of people who populate this forum.
Please keep in mind one of the only two things I ask of forum members:
Quote from: Deb on July 05, 2015, 08:53:50 PMIn order to keep this as simple and friendly as possible,
all I ask is that you put to use what you hopefully learned in kindergarten:
be kind, courteous and respectful of others.
You all seem to manage to keep things civil (right on the edge).
Not coddled, just civil.
Very much appreciated.
Quote from: voidypaul on April 11, 2016, 08:24:50 AMAs i have claimed on several occasions , that i think Seth did not get into the void states because of Janes early demise .
That's one thing I don't really understand: early demise.
(Yes I'm a nincompoop. Well, not really, I just haven't read all the books. Yet.)
But from what I have read, we choose our lives before we come here, choose our deaths and while we're generally not conscious of that while we're here and because of free will, things shift and change a bit. So do we or don't we choose our death before we even come into this existence? Is there such a thing as early demise? And if Seth could tell Jane and Rob some things about their incarnations, those deaths, probable lives... did he not know Jane was going to die when she did? Or maybe he did, and just kept things to himself? Or did she change her "mind" and opt out early?
So many questions, I do feel like a dunce. But I just have to keep asking.
Hi Jon , excuse me but what the fck are you talking about .
No you most definately don't want to butt ego's with me you just might get burnt .
Jon you said to me ;
You assume many things about others views for no particular reason other than ignorance
Paul ; well that's a crock of .... me old freaky deaky . Very sensitive are'nt you . ignorance of what mate ?
Why on earth would i want to respond to any of your suggestions esp' when they have nothing to do with the current topic ?
I already said that Wilber + all those old hippys opened the door to the new generation so to spk + i am grateful for that but as to their work , it is all mostly old hat + useful only to beginners in the field + even then most of it is v misleading .I mean , the stuff you said about wilber + the space kadets or whatever shyte he was into about space central or whatever it was . What a load of old blab + any mature person could easily see thru that . I don't need to read his books , just what you said about him was laughable enough . Seth is the only material worth its salt . The rest are just pretenders + well meaning wannabe's .
I would suggest you stick to the Seth mat' + be happy about it .
Of course you don't understand jhana (or my void states) + most definately not Seth's undifferentiated field . But i just said that , as a simple statement , if you took it personally then i feel sorry for your being so oversensitive .
If a person has a difference of opinion then i hope , as i do with Barrie that it can be settled but just because we get a little prickly with each other it does'nt mean it is disrespectful . Both Barrie + myself seem to think we know the Seth material + yet there are some glaring discrepancies + we wade into each other somewhat but i have never been personally abusive to him nor him to me as far as i'm concerned .
I piss Barrie off sometimes + vice versa but we have the ultimate respect in not getting personal tho we throw a few jibes here + there but we stick at it + one fine day i'm sure we will more or less see eye to eye , i hope anyway .
You said ;
I would question your belief around needing to be banned or removed from online communities, it is self-sabotaging behavior
Whatttttt , you have no idea why or what for i have had differences with the online Buddhist community so give it a break + quit the amateur psychology bluff .
Don't read my posts if they upset you .
Well if you say you are arrogant then i'd assume you know better than me but you have little understanding of the Seth mat' + even less of me so i take your comment with a pinch of salt + meaningless . OK
What affirmation was that about religion i spoke of then ?
your recommendations likewise i take with a pinch of salt . Wilber + jung are peanuts to me .
If you want to chat about Patanjali then yep i'm ok with that but don't try + tell me what i should or should'nt read . OK
Yes you are wrong + i most definately disagree .
No i don't want to find people who are similar to me I just want to get the sethian community to sort themselves out + have thrown out a challenge to all the head honcho's to debate me on these topics i have raised + if any of them think they know Seth on these particular subjects that i am wrangling with Barrie about then let them come join the fun + throw a few blazing comments if they like but i am determined to get this straight with them + get rid of the missunderstandings that seem at this time to prevail . OK
peace , paul
Quote from: voidypaul on April 12, 2016, 09:09:37 PMyour recommendations likewise i take with a pinch of salt
Sorry for intruding, but I take everything with a salt lick.
A pinch, a grain, are never enough to get through life.
Hi Deb , hope you + your loved ones are in good health + happy .
Rah , rah , well said Deb , love the way you put it .
No you are not a dunce we all have difficulties in one field or another . I am probably a dunce in your favoured field but i'd have a go if i had to + try not to feel embarassed about my mistakes .
I hope we do get to meet up when you come over I think you are a lively + warm hearted personality + i would go out of my way to make you feel comfortable with me . I will not even mention void or all of that old guff + we can have a chat about what funny lives we all lead .
When we are born into this life we have a sort of programme to follow which includes our 'death' but as Seth says , it is all about probabilities + at any point we can change what path we take . No one is meant to die for any reason .We all die when the time is right for us even if that includes a bit of pain + misery . I am fairly certain that even Seth thuoght Jane woud be around for a while longer as he had said that he had plans for this + that in their work together + i'm sure many more books . My personal opinion (as it all is) is that Jane struggled with some inhibiting beliefs about religion + spirituality . Even Seth was most careful not to introduce some topics to Jane (like reincarnation) untill he thought she was quite ready + as far as iam concerned she did the whole world a great service in going as far as she did with Seth . But i think some of her old beliefs may have been more deeply embedded than even Seth had known (+ he did tippy toe around her sometimes tho sometimes i think he was a bit of a taskmaster) + ultimately her conflicting beliefs got the better of her, bless her . But they are all together now + I'm sure she has resolved her past difficulties tho i am also sure that she would have been kicking herself (just a little)
for letting go when she did . This is just my opinion .
Early demise . I have just recently had a lifelong friend have their only child die of cancer (she was only 14) . I had not seen my friend for many yrs + we only occasoinally kept in touch but always stayed strong in our love + respect for each other . She has allways been afraid of death + dying + rang me in a great distress aboout her daughters illness which went on for several yrs. So eventually she asked me to come + help out + talk to them all about my spirituality . When i got there the girl had just had a new wig made (dark red) + seemed to be getting stronger + was full of beans when i saw her . I last met her when she was 5 + we had a great laugh about it but most impotantly we had a couple of hours chat about the immortal + eternal soul + got along like a house on fire . The next morning she passed over , confident that she knew it was a new life + not some miserable end . Even her mother + father felt that it was an unusual coincidence that she left on the day i arrived but it was not , she was an old soul + did not want to stay around + start a new family of her own with all of the ties + karma that this entails (same reason i never got married or had children) + left lighthearted + on the up . I am one of those souls that helps others make the transition (in my dreaming self + not overtly as i am in fact a v private + self contained personality) but it is what i do + so do many others wether they know it or not .
She is happy + glorious where she is now + we knew each other in past lives + my being with her was a promise kept from many lives ago when she helped me in my time of need ....
We are all immortal + eternal + we never really die .
peace , love , paul
Quote from: voidypaul on April 12, 2016, 10:21:20 PMI hope we do get to meet up when you come over
That seems do-able at this point, unless a different portion of my trip hijacks me. And if we do get the opportunity to meet, please do not censure the void or yourself in any way. I am here to learn.
Interesting and sad story about your friend's daughter. I have to always wonder what's/whose lesson is in that. It seems so wasteful to me. I've dealt with cancer myself, learning how and why I brought it upon myself. At the time I was sure I was learning that we either cannot control anything or we completely make our own reality and need to learn how to use that knowledge. Seth has helped clarify a lot of things for me.
Paul,
You wrote:
QuoteMy personal opinion (as it all is) is that Jane struggled with some inhibiting beliefs about religion + spirituality .
I agree with you. Even one year in a Roman Catholic orphanage would have meant total immersion brain-washing, and it could take more than one lifetime to get over the effects.
Hi folks , old loonytunes is back.
There seem to be a few posts missing here ? One from Barrie + also from John + a reply to them both from me , + some from Deb + Beth .
So where do i start. I feel it must be said again that no one should be reinterpreting the Seth mat' according to their own beliefs as Barrie puts it nor as John puts it
''It is an open ended system that encourages "users" to adapt it to their own uses, and expand upon it however they see fit.''
When one is at home one may well do this but when one comes on to a Seth site then one must, to one's best ability be as accurate as can be according to the Seth mat' itself . Or what is the use of a Seth site ?
If you would like a helping hand Deb then i offer my services + will use Seth quotes to back up what is being said .
for instance in my discussions with Barrie he has said that ,
'' Paul said ; 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.
You are doing the same thing, now, Paul. But throwing in that Seth2 nonsense is amazingly wrong as well.
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 ''
So Barrie most definately thinks that i am talking nonsense , but ,,,
From Seth ;
Vol 8 , sess 407 , pg 268
Seth 2 is spk'g
'' While i was the source of the mat' , Seth as you think of him was at times a silent partner ................. etc''
Seth 2 goes on to say
'' I who am the source , sent a portion of myself , an independent portion , to you.................etc ''
+ from sess' 409 , pg 276
Seth himself is spk'g
''my big brother has come '' +
''...... I have told you i am a teacher , + i have let the principal in the door.''
It is quite clear from these quotes that Seth is NOT the source of the Seth mat' .
''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.''
So Barrie my friend , i hope we can put this particular topic to rest .
Barrie also made the point ,
'' 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. '' + also Barrie said
''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.''
Here we go then barrie ,
Vol 2 , sess' 61 , pg 151
''...... the fact is , mat' on your field is composed of constant energy pulsations ; + while to you the appearance is one of permanence to a fair degree ..............etc
'' therefore there is what i call the neg' interval , when one pulsation has vanished from your plane + another is about to take its place .........etc
'' You do not percieve the neg' interval ''
'' Our neg' interevals do indeed have something to do with antimatter , i prefer to call it neg' matter .''
+ vol 3 , sess 109 , pg 156
'' Both the dream univ' + the univ' of neg' mat' then are by-products of the phys' univ' , .........etc ''
''........in this manner your phys' univ' , dream univ' + univ' of neg' mat' have come together , while retaining their boundaries as a more or less closed sys' .''
So can we agree on this also Barrie ?
I must also point out a mistake on my part , where i said
'' this is a part of the 3 field sys' that makes up the whole of this univ' sys'.''
but these 3 fields are simply a part of what Seth calls a closed sys' + not as i said , that makes up of the whole of this univ' sys' . The 3 field sys' is only a part of the univ' sys' .
So in effect Barrie has also helped me to correct myself , ta mate .
What i feel is most important is that the Seth material as it is, is not (even when i make a mistake) distorted nor reinterpreted , otherwise the true meaning of the mat' will be lost + the Seth sites may unintentionally be the cause of this . So come on all you Seth afficianados lets get it on + get it straight + not let the mat' fall into disrepute nor fail to convey the true meaning to those who have come here to learn .
peace . paul
Hi Sena , hope you are well.
Just to reply to your comment ,
''I agree with you. Even one year in a Roman Catholic orphanage would have meant total immersion brain-washing, and it could take more than one lifetime to get over the effects.''
Paul ; Yes mate , some of the Catholic priests etc have a lot to answer for. The abuse of children on both phys' + mental levels is disgusting + equally appalling are the cover-ups that have gone on . So many of them have very difficult karma to live out one day . Even Seth had his karma as Frank Watts (to learn humility) , so even the great + respected Seth had his pitfalls + karma to make up but what i find most beautiful about Seths last reincarnation as Frank is, that once it was done Seth came back to us all a reinvigorated + masterful teacher . So he points out to us all that not even the neg' karma can harm us if we work it out + we can all go on to greater things.
Regards , paul
(http://pillsburyflorist.com/lily_header_160x120.jpg)
My sympathy for you Paul in your loss.
Hey Deb , nice to see things back up + running , hope you are keeping well.
If you can make a tea or coffee with me when you come over then so you will,
if not , thats life .
I also have a few restrictions to do with my health as i am lets say semi disabled in that i have crumbling bones in my lower spine + at times this leads to a paralysis from my hips down + i cannot walk . I use morphine patches to ease the pain so its not that bad. I also have what is called severe apneoa so quite regularly i only sleep 2-3 hrs a night (if at all) + this messes me mind up a bit . Thats life , + a few little challenges to overcome thats all + i will fix it one day .
I sincerely hope that the cancer you have suffered is or is being overcome, you certainly seem full of life + my best wishes go out to you in this respect.
We all go in our own good time however hard or easy it comes .
peace , paul
Thank you Beth , you're so kind .
The young girl is an angel in heaven so to spk + i look forward to meeting up with her one fine day .
I love the flowers you posted .
I see that you are in the chat section Beth , is there some particular way to use this function , i don't know as i'm an online dummy .
;D
I am a Tech-NO-Moron.
I hired the young Mr. Ramsey next door to set up my new computer. I'll ask him how to Chat. :)
Ok ta , it will be interesting for me to see how it works
ahhh someone's calling , got to go
Peace , paul
Quote from: voidypaul on April 21, 2016, 12:14:20 PMI see that you are in the chat section Beth , is there some particular way to use this function , i don't know as i'm an online dummy .
Quote from: BethAnne on April 21, 2016, 12:34:56 PMI hired the young Mr. Ramsey next door to set up my new computer. I'll ask him how to Chat.
It's really easy, the same as the one on Facebook if you've ever used that. There's the Chat Bar in the bottom right corner of your screen. If someone else is logged into the forum, it will say Chat(1) or Chat(2) or how many others you can chat with. Click on the bar and it will open, with a list of names of who is available. Click on someone's name and a second little window will open on the left of the first window. Click in the bottom bar of the new window and type something. Hit your Enter key and it will send your message to the other person. A chime will sound every time a new message is sent, if the computers have sound/speakers. If you're done chatting, you can close the box by clicking on the X. Screen capture is attached.
Ask me any questions.
Cool. I figured it would be easy.
:)
So you ever arrange meeting times for chats? I'd be willing to be up early or late some weekend day.
Quote from: BethAnne on April 21, 2016, 06:01:04 PMSo you ever arrange meeting times for chats?
As far as I know, no one has used Chat. But it's private, between two people at a time, and the text is deleted in the database after a day. So since it's private, I would never know if people are using it.
But no, I'ver never arranged a meeting time. At one point I had more of a chatroom on the forum, where more than one person could join in. But it was never used so I removed it.
Right now I'm having a few minor technical problems with the forum but will hopefully get that fixed pretty soon, and would consider reinstalling the Chat Room if anyone is interested. Could be a party!
Hey there Paul, I don't have much time to catch up on the forum tonight, but a couple of things from you caught my eye so here I am just for a bit.
Quote from: voidypaul on April 21, 2016, 11:13:56 AMThere seem to be a few posts missing here ? One from Barrie + also from John + a reply to them both from me , + some from Deb + Beth .
There shouldn't be anything missing, I don't delete or edit other peoples' posts and I checked the Recycle Bin, nothing new in there. I do tend to edit my own posts, because sometimes I'm too honest.
I'll teach you a little trick that a friend taught me a while ago: If you can't find a post you think someone made, click on Members (across the top of the boards) and then the person's nickname. It will bring up their profile. Then, in the left column under Summary, click on Show Posts and it will show you all the posts that person has made, the most recent at the top, and you can skim through them. You can even do this with your own profile.
Also, please see my instructions to Beth about using Chat (in response to both of your questions) here:
Quote from: Deb on April 21, 2016, 04:39:32 PMIt's really easy, the same as the one on Facebook if you've ever used that.
Quote from: voidypaul on April 21, 2016, 12:07:56 PMIf you can make a tea or coffee with me when you come over then so you will,
if not , thats life .
The plan at this point is I'll have 6/18 - 6/20 in London before I head home. The only thing I may schedule is a boat trip up the Thames to Greenwich, so tea is a possibility. I'm very sorry about your physical challenges. The back problem sounds especially nasty to live with, but I have a friend who has apnea and that's no bowl of cherries either. I'll have internet on most of my trip, will be popping in and out of the forum and will certainly have email capabilities. So closer to those dates we can touch base. You can at some point PM your address, so I can figure out if I can figure out transportation. :o It would be a great pleasure to meet another Sethie and I'm sure we won't run out of things to talk about.
My health is perfectly fine at this point. I can say honestly MUCH better than it was 10+ years ago. The challenge I had was in 2005, I never felt threatened by it. Just knew there were certain things I'd have to do, all with finite time, and would be done with it. I know (I think) what I did wrong and learned my lesson immediately. But it was a very obvious case of illness as a metaphor. And I still wonder, if I'd found Seth at that time, if I'd have had the courage to turn my back on the dictates of modern medicine and instead heal myself.
Hi Deb,
thanks for your kind thoughts on my physical challenges . Its not so bad really, i actually get about fairly well on a good day + in fact my consultant told me that riding a bike would be helpful + also a little swimming (+ fortunately for me these have always been some of my favourite things) as they take the weight off my spine + if i go easy then i keep in reasonably good shape . Walking can be difficult as it sends shockwaves up my spine + this can shake the vertebrae out of alignment which then sqeezes my spinal canal + that is when things get a little bit difficult . But i do pretty well on one or two crutches when i have to so if you would like to meet in london (i live in the suburbs) then that is not a problem for me esp' if i have rested the day or two before. Whatever is convenient for you. The sleep problem is what it is + i tend to think it pushes me more in the direction of my meditations etc as the medication they gave me (venlofaxin) made me feel worse, they offered me a cpap machine but i'm not too sure about that either + have left that for a later date if things get worse but for now i feel i have it fairly well under control. And too much of the morphine just isn't my thing .
I totally agree with you about not having to rely on medical intervention if it can be helped + intend to heal myself of these challenges i have set up for myself, I even believe i can grow new bone structure to replace the damaged vertebrae, so i have high hopes for my future. Congratulations on having sorted yourself out from the dreaded big C you have my admiration for the obvious work , honesty + courage it must have taken .
I have no problem with giving you my address + as you are admin on this site i presume you have access to my email + if you would like to contact me that way then i would feel more comfortable than making it public.
I'm sure if we do get to meet it will be a pleasant + interesting exchange + as you say it is always nice to meet like minded people. I am as you might have guessed by now quite well steeped in the Seth material + i suppose that is because of my void + other similar oob experiences which i found Seth to be the only one who could come close to describing those states of mind tho there are in some mystical schools very similar expressions + concepts . You would always be safe with me, apart from my nigglyness + irritability about the way some folks put forth Seths concepts not much really bothers me.
Well actually some of the super rich, their barsterd companies + their political lakkys do get my goat up from time to time but i find this to be a natural reaction to the fact that we could have peace + prosperity for all in this world if only they would stop interfering.
On that note i sincerly hope that you get the good old Bern' for president although in some ways i do admire Trumpys going against the establishment but he is also v much a part of the problem in my limited viewpoint + i think Hillary is just too tarnished. But we dont have much better over here either. Stupid 2 party politics........
Anyway i hope all goes well for you + your loved ones.
peace , paul
Quote from: voidypaul on April 23, 2016, 08:41:29 PMWhatever is convenient for you.
This trip, for me, is not about convenience but about stepping WAAAYYY outside my comfort zone. By the time I make it back to London, a mere bus ride outside of London will be a pleasant way to visit new surroundings. I may be a late bloomer in life, but I'm still a bloomer.
Quote from: voidypaul on April 23, 2016, 08:41:29 PMCongratulations on having sorted yourself out from the dreaded big C
Little c for me.
Thank you but I can't take much credit for my recovery. Honestly, to me my dis-ease was a reaction to my only child's diagnosis of a chronic illness and my wanting to take it away from him. A mother's sincere but knee-jerk reaction. And compared to my horror at his diagnosis, my dis-ease was of minimal consequence once I recognized it for what it was. I've since been told that my desire to take away his burden would be robbing him of the challenge he chose for his own life (who am I to deny him of his own choice?), which has helped me cope.
Honestly, to me my dis-ease was a reaction to my only child's diagnosis of a chronic illness and my wanting to take it away from him.
I found this very touching and wise.
This is probably my fault as a mother also... Actually, it's an issue I'm dealing with a friend right now.
I hope your son is well now.
:)
stepping WAAAYYY outside my comfort zone.
How so? From your posts I would not have guessed. Do you push on your limits in general?
Quote from: BethAnne on April 25, 2016, 04:09:00 AMstepping WAAAYYY outside my comfort zone.
How so? From your posts I would not have guessed. Do you push on your limits in general?
I guess some people would say I do, but it only appears that way to others because my limits are different than what others consider "standard." I don't feel like I've pushed my limits much in the past, because the life I live is
my normal. I need to prove this to myself: "Man's greatest illusion is that he has limitations." Robert Monroe
But being an empty nester has set off something in me this past year that I can't explain. A drive to really come into myself in ways I've never felt before. My upcoming trip is the basket I'm putting all my eggs into. There's more to it than I've let on (better saved for more confidential conversation) and there will be some challenges I've not faced before. I've never before traveled outside the country alone. I have had some discouraging and judgmental input and raised eyebrows from acquaintances with very traditional/conservative ideas of the way women should behave, so have been keeping my mouth shut. But then there's this from an astrologer (last year she kept telling me there is a lot of travel, language and sorting out my beliefs in my near future--that was before I dreamed up this trip). More recently:
"May I point something out? I have a feeling that you have some intuition about this trip. I have a feeling that you know that something's coming with this trip, more than just being on this trip. I think there's something waiting for you there. And so just as an astrologer, I'm not telling you what to do, ok, but I just want to point out again, ok? Look at this, Venus in Saturn, what you truly believe about love, trining Uranus and Aries in 7, holy shit, and then Mars coming up on Scorpio and Juno in the 2nd, I mean I have like pins and needles all over talking about that. And that Mars in Juno and Scorpio, trining Neptune and Pisces, that's like magic, it's got magic poured on it, ok? It has magic poured on it Deb. And so let me just back you up about something, ok? Stay open. This is not just about getting the airline ticket booked, I mean you can't imagine what's going to happen when you get there. I'm telling you. There's no way you could imagine it. There's no way."
Sounds like my own version of
Eat, Pray, Love, huh?
@voidypaul I'm sorry this (your) topic keeps getting hijacked.
If you want it kept to posts that are more on-track with the subject, let me know and I can split all the other posts off into a new topic. I thought the exchanges between you and
@barrie were brilliant. I hope they continue.
Hi Deb ,
Hi DEb,
i like + admire you more + more as i read your posts . Have faith in yourself girl , without a doubt in my mind you are a 'good un' . . You show a refreshing honesty + courage which i deeply respect + it makes me hope all the more that we will be able to meet up so that some of that goodness might rub off on me (greedy little toad). You also show a faith in yourself + in life that is refreshing to someone a little stuck in the mud like me .
Don't worry about the posts going somewhat astray , tho i appreciate your concern . It seems like Barrie has bailed out for the time being + i'm not sure if there is anyone else who can keep pace with me on these particular topics. I hope he does not feel upset that i have pointed out to him some of his poss' straying or misinterpretation of some of Seths concepts for as i said in my post to him , he also helped point out a mistake on my part (+ on other occasions) which has helped me refine my own understanding + for me that is one of the areas where we can help each other in good measure. So hopefully he will return + we can lock horns again , as i think we are both a bit feisty + opinionated + take it to the edge with each other but i feel it does us both good to get it out + put it under the spotlight .
Perhaps i may have to try some other sites so i can get stuck in to my pet obsession so to spk but i like it here + i like you little miss moderator (oops admin) + i will stick at it for the while .
I sincerly hope you find something special over here + i'm sure your little soothsayer is correct in encouraging you to go for it .
I live quite close to a park (Crystal Palace) so it might be nice to meet up in the cafe there . I say a park but its probably more like a big garden where you come from .
Hi to Beth , hope all is well for you too my dear .
Ohhhhhh what will i do with my void now ...............
peace , paul
Hi all,
Back on topic....
Help me understand this right, Paul. This 'state' you have brought up is beyond frameworks, beyond creativity, beyond consciousness, beyond beyond....(again, words become difficult, but we need them atm, so bear with me). You are seeking the absolute Source. Am I correct?
In the other thread you started (before everyone took over... :D ), you answered my question regarding the point of this "state" as being far preferable to this reality, and you mentioned hopefully this is your last incarnation here. It sounds like over 'there' is better than over 'here'.
And it might just be so.
My question is more focused the other way around. What's the point of all this then?
The Source has differentiated itself. It has created consciousness, voids, frameworks, time and space, multi dimensional probabilities. It has created. From the planets to every speck of sand on the shore. The one thing that is quite obvious, is that creativity is abundant, never ending and multi dimensional. It's hard to argue against, whether you're into Seth or are a pure materialist, that some kind of creativity is happening, at one level or another.
So, why would this absolute Source create all this (and more), just for us to say "over 'there' is better than 'here', so let's just go home because this life isn't so great"?
LK
I came across this video this weekend by Erin Green Rothschild and how her family carries a certain DNA "knowledge and privilege". I don't know what I think
about what she is saying, tho I've seen so much crazy "stuff" anything is possible.
Half way through, however, she talks about Reality being a box inside a box and that there are many of these structures that hold alternate realities that one is able to jump from one to the other......if you know how.
Paul, does this relate to what you are experiencing?
(http://faculty.uml.edu/ndeluca/84.334/topics/fig0205c.gif)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgFQ6w8KToU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgFQ6w8KToU)
Hi LenKop + BethAnne ,
great question LenKop , i will be back soon with a considered + i hope clear reply .
Love the vids you dig up Beth , hav'nt seen it yet but i must say that the rothschilds are not my fav' people + i have a bone or 2 to pick with them one day .
Hi BethAnne,
Wow she makes some grand claims , sinclairs the holders of the Christ bloodline my big fat ass. I don't dispute that the roth's are the current rulers of the world but it won't be too long b4 they are knocked off their high + lofty perch . Freakin reptilianss my big bad hairys , i'll give them freakin reptilian , i have them for breakfast (as guests actually). Under contract with God , fck me she certainly knows how to spread the bull thick + fast , if she or they beieves what she says, they are in the deepest dire straights i could poss' imagine .
The reptilians are not (the real rep's) the bunch of ass fckr's she makes them out to be + if she or they believe this bull then i pity them their karma , as no one or thing or being of any import can escape the bonds of karma .
Wow this makes my blood boil.
She is right about the humble , they do + will inherit the earth , they deserve it . I'm v happy for her that she wants no part of the foolishness she spks of , she will find her freedom . That world that destroyed itself , they are our ancesters + we are here to make it right . We are more than dual selves we are mulitidimensional but i wholeheartedly agree that we need to step outside of our ego selves to begin to set our true selves free + gain our true inheritance as ONE , the true nonduality of self .
I like a lot of what she goes on to say But, the Jesus bloodline is a crock, she does'nt know of what she spks, the Jesus Entity is here for love + peace + the equality of ALL. God is encoded into everything we are , wether we access it or not is another thing but that is why the Christ is back again , to show us the way. I'm glad her son had the experience he had , he may be a great help to this world . She is right about service , we are all in service to ATI + we must reflect that in as much of what we do as we can.
Claims to be ark angels eh, that will be seen to be believed , not quite sure what she's saying about his clones , sounds dangerous to me , no clone is a good thing + in my estimation is an impossibility , there are no clones that is an impossibility no 2 things are the same even if they seem to be .
i agree that we need to work on contact with our inner selves + that we are all immortal but no one of any import would want to have an immortal body what a cock up that would be + so inhibiting to the true inner self.
Soul cathchers my ass . NO ONE can catch or possess a soul or inner self they are deluded if they think so. Wrong again that this is a computer programme , we all create our own reality, our own space time continuum + NO ONE can take that away from us or can force us to concede it . More crap about the so called tesseract , we are a part of the 5th dimension Seth spks of + that is upheld by much more begningn + incredibly more powerful entitys than she or they seem to be aware of . Yes there is a divine geometry but full of numbers , that is far too weak a brew of reality if only she knew. I like them to see if they could see my bloody numbers they'd get a freakin surprise. Fck off leaches + suckers what bull, they just see what they want to see. Obviously they've watched too many movies.
It's not that i deny her her reality but it is a bit of a paranoid + poor one but i believe she is trying to do some good in the world so she may be enlightened one day as to the reality of our situation which is as Seth has said WE CREATE OUR OWN REALITY.
Honour your darkness , wow they're wierd .What sort of reality are these people making for themselves but many + perilous steps to take . But ohhh we need the 3rd density or we can't move on , they have gotten themselves i a quandry. too much matrix too much silly billy darkness + devils + delusions . As Seth says you get what you concentrate on . We all have some shit to work thru + sometimes it can seriously sidetrack us but to create such perilous delusions is going to be hard work for them + this is just so unecessary.
Its no wonder she gets scrambled as she said + loses herself , anyone would if they cut out so many dangerous obstacles + perilous steps to overcome .
These so called super soldiers had better get their shit in order + no one can have their soul taken out of their bodies + put into a clone , they have been hypnotised .
Then she says that our grearest enimies are our own souls , she is indeed a poor lost soul if she believes that .
Sorry Beth but i can't take much more of these poor shoody delusions but if there are portions of it that you would like to ask of me then ask + i will do my best to straighten out the wrinkled old soul stuff they make of the true inner self .
Sorry LenKop i usually like to deal with 1st post 1st but when i started watching this tripe it got my goat up + i had to pour forth my disbelief . But be sure i am working on the real meat on the bone which your honest + deep questions bring up + will post you soon .
peace , paul
Thank you Paul for responding.
So, I do have some questions but just this for now.
Merovingians. Opinion?? Do you believe there is any credence to the Reptilian theory? Does the Tesseract have a relationship to what you've experienced?
Do you have an opinion on going from the 7th Octave to the 8th as reality?
Your opinion of the Rothschilds?
Do you understand what the Four Corners is referring other than her explaination?
Thanks,
Beth
PS. I go through as much information as my brain can hold and look for patterns before I believe. :-)
tesseract is the four-dimensional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space) analog of the cube (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube); the tesseract is to the cube as the cube is to the square (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_(geometry)). Just as the surface of the cube consists of six square faces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(geometry)), the hypersurface of the tesseract consists of eight cubical cells (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(geometry)). Wikipedia
Hi LenKop, you said,
Hi all,
Back on topic....
Help me understand this right, Paul. This 'state' you have brought up is beyond frameworks, beyond creativity, beyond consciousness, beyond beyond....(again, words become difficult, but we need them atm, so bear with me). You are seeking the absolute Source. Am I correct?
Paul ;
Yes LenKop , you are absolutely correct. But it is not beyond either creativity nor con's (well perhaps momentarily). It is the source of both con's + creativity . For all of us there is indeed an absolute source + of course it is ATI , who is the Source + Creation (creativity) of ALL.
If you can imagine what Seth has said about the 'initial' creation of the inf' manifest universes , that the 1st creation was the unendurable mass that Seth mentioned which in my parlance is the 1st Divine void state , then that is what i have been into , this 1st void state , + 'at its deepest level' or greatest intensity as Seth would put it, is the nonbeing that both Seth + i spk of . It would seem to be a contradiction to say that in nonbeing one would come to know of ones creation out of the Divine Mind + Subjectivity of ATI but it is a kind of a final test or trail of the self , to let go of all that it is, was or could be + submit to the the deepest darkest test of the soul or self .
All of creation , b4 it was objectively created, was put into a suspended state in which all poss' or prob' of con's were suspended + Seth has descrbed this correctly as nonbeing . This state is to you + me + all or any part or portion of reality , nonbeing . We were put into a state of no poss' or prob' of our con's because ATI was in a sense protecting His own creations from the unbelievable agony of His searching , + this agonising would have put any part of His own creation into a situation or state which would have been absolutely unbearable + ultimately destructive to it, so He protected us from this by putting us all into nonbeing or suspension + it was from this state that ATI , when He had found the means , released us as individual con's units into the 1st viod state (or unendurable mass) which He had already seeded with all of the indivdual poss + prob' of con's which we then inherited + used to seed all our generations + univ's of being .
This state of nonbeing is prior to the creation of any manifest reality so yes it is 'beyond' all frameworks or universal manifestations as these come after so to spk .
And yes it is as far as i can tell the absolute source as far as any created being is concerned .
One is , or the self is then 'shown' (just after the nonbeing state) its own creation as an individual consciousness unit, which were the 1st con's let loose from the Divine Mind + Subjectivity of ATI .Which Seth also describes in the 1st vol of the unknown reality (these initial con's units).
In nonbeing is also ATI's gift of the understanding of His own Creation or Source.
. If a created being can come closer than this to ATI i do not know but for me it is the ultimate .
To get into this state of nonbeing one must pass thru many states (or intensities as Seth puts it) of nonmanifest (+ non thought) being which Seth describes in his undifferentiated field or level, no thoughts no manifestations but an absolute intense concentration of con's or being . If you can remember what Seth has said about an indiv' con's unit building up within itself an intense + almost unendurable desire to be , then this would sort of describe this nonmanifest nonthought state of being before it becomes manifest in any way.
And conversely it passes 'back' thru these states from the manifest systems to get to its source + nonbeing + ATI b4 its manifestation into objectivity, for of course ATI was Himself nonmanifest to begin with.
I hope this is intelligible to you LenKop, it is v difficult to describe or put into words but i hope that Seths terms will help as i believe i have been faithful to his conceptualising of these things .
LenKop ;
In the other thread you started (before everyone took over... :D ), you answered my question regarding the point of this "state" as being far preferable to this reality, and you mentioned hopefully this is your last incarnation here. It sounds like over 'there' is better than over 'here'.
And it might just be so.
Paul ;
As far as i am concerned + for the reasons i have just stated , yes it is my preferred state of being , but i would'nt say that it is better than here , it is just immeasurably more + yes con's + emotion is so unbelievably enhanced that it cannot be described adequately.
LenKop ;
My question is more focused the other way around. What's the point of all this then?
The Source has differentiated itself. It has created consciousness, voids, frameworks, time and space, multi dimensional probabilities. It has created. From the planets to every speck of sand on the shore. The one thing that is quite obvious, is that creativity is abundant, never ending and multi dimensional. It's hard to argue against, whether you're into Seth or are a pure materialist, that some kind of creativity is happening, at one level or another.
So, why would this absolute Source create all this (and more), just for us to say "over 'there' is better than 'here', so let's just go home because this life isn't so great"?
Paul ;
No thats not the point of it LenKop , for as i have said that when one 'returns' from the nonbeing state etc, then the self or con's unit as it comes back into the 1st Divine Void State, then one has a moment of the simultanaeity of all being or the moment point of creation or the spacious present as it exists in all universal fields of creation + for all beings . To be as ONE in the Real , total nonduality , as one with ATI , just for a moment is infinite orgasms + ecstasy beyond compare, eternally + indelibley etched into one's soul or being + i can never forget it (i have tried believe me).
Thats a part of the reason why . its not about seperation or nothingness (although that does indeed come into it) nor that a soul or self should go there because over here its not so good , its about ATI + my love + eternal gratitude + service to this Divine Being for allowing me this experience + wanting to go home so to spk , to be as One with ATI again , + for me , the true homestead.
Oh yes , thanks for getting us back on topic LenKop
peace , paul
Hi Beth,
the Merovingians, haha thats a good story, as that is all it is . It was created to help keep the faith in Christ when it was ailing + in this sense has been of good service to the cause. But Christ did not have any children , he was no fool + would not have wanted to be bound to the earthly sphere by such a phys' connection + left to go on to greater things + not be tied to this plane in any way.
Seth also rightly says that the genetic codes are created by the soul that is seeking reincarnation + NOT by any such thing passed on from parent to child. As he has said, the children we have are not really our creations but just templates to kickstart the process, which the incarnating personality then takes over + makes his/her own + forms the body around their own genetic knowledge + heritage. Also Seth said that the phys' material is not the same from one moment to the next when we are recreated as in the pulsations he has described + that these recreations are entirely distinct + different from one moment to the next. So it is not possible for any past genetic heritage to be passed on from either mother or father unless of course the new personality chooses from its own karma to display such tendencies.
So the merovingian tale is just that , a fairy story made up by certain powerful families to up the stakes in their favour , that is all .
The Christ entity chooses its own time + place , preferably far removed from any ruling dynasties, or it would be at the mercy of some phys' condition + such is NOT the case . The children we have are simply friends or loves from past lives + have nothing to do with genetics being passed from one generation to the next. Although it is true that some families choose to be incarnated together over several generations it is also true that in between time they will have other incarnations in other countries + of different stock so there is always new input into the genetic stream so to spk. There is no such a thing as a pure genetic race or family or anything of the sort.
Hope that answers your question.
Beth ;
Do you believe there is any credence to the Reptilian theory?
Paul ; Depends which theory you're talking about . The rep's were on this earth long before humankind that is true . But if you think that they are here again to take over , that is just a load of rubbish. I have had quite intimate contact with one + they are much more advanced than we are which implies that they have developed morally + ethically also which of course means that they know exactly what an interference or transgression is into another race's karmic field, + are obviously aware that it would be most foolish of any one of them to screw themselves karmically if they did . They are'nt stupid you know , perhaps there may be one or two who like to play silly buggers but they cannot come into a human body nor conceal themselves as such unless they are expressly invited to do so + even then they are most cautious as was my contact when we made our aquaintance. They are generally a peaceful + progressive race + have much better things to do than play with childlike beings such as we are to them. I v much like my rep' but we rarely have any contact as they do NOT like to interfere. If some fools like to think that the reps are trying to fck us then they are sadly deluded.They are just like the other alien races that have lived here + still have an interest in how it goes on the old planet + would like to help but are constrained by interspecies formalities etc which cannot be overlooked . If my rep' thought there were others that messed around down here she would blow a fuse + definately kick some ass.
I hope that covers that topic for you as far as i am concerned . NO one . no species or race can escape karma + they all tread lightly so to spk.
Beth ;
Does the Tesseract have a relationship to what you've experienced?
Paul ;
Not really Beth , Seths 5th dimension is much much more progressive + has more to do with what i am into .
Beth ;
Do you have an opinion on going from the 7th Octave to the 8th as reality?
Paul ;
One goes where one's frequencies takes one + one will transcend all octaves if one will have the faith not even necessarily the knowledge as such .
Beth ;
Your opinion of the Rothschilds?
Paul ; the manipulative roths are a bunch of asses , they do not understand even their own karma till they are born into slavery + servitude again .
Beth ;
Do you understand what the Four Corners is referring other than her explaination?
paul ;
Nope , not even really interested , one can overcome all obstacles if one wills it .
Beth ;
I go through as much information as my brain can hold and look for patterns before I believe. :-)
Paul ;
Good , follow your own path Beth , it is always the best .
Hope this has been somewhat helpful Beth .
peace , paul
QuoteI have had quite intimate contact with one + they are much more advanced than we are which implies that they have developed morally + ethically also which of course means that they know exactly what an interference or transgression is into another race's karmic field, + are obviously aware that it would be most foolish of any one of them to screw themselves karmically if they did . They are'nt stupid you know , perhaps there may be one or two who like to play silly buggers but they cannot come into a human body nor conceal themselves as such unless they are expressly invited to do so + even then they are most cautious as was my contact when we made our aquaintance. They are generally a peaceful + progressive race + have much better things to do than play with childlike beings such as we are to them. I v much like my rep' but we rarely have any contact as they do NOT like to interfere. If some fools like to think that the reps are trying to fck us then they are sadly deluded.They are just like the other alien races that have lived here + still have an interest in how it goes on the old planet + would like to help but are constrained by interspecies formalities etc which cannot be overlooked . If my rep' thought there were others that messed around down here she would blow a fuse + definately kick some ass.
Paul, I find your ideas on reptiles fascinating. In Sri Lanka we have quite a few geckos living in the house - I'll see them in a different light from now on.
Thank You Paul for your responses.
As far as any ET....while I have had telepathic "conversations" with Beings of this Earth and Beings from who knows where, I haven't had a sighting of ET. But then I really do not want to.
Yet, I live about an hour from Dulce and hear all sorts of stories. When the lineman was putting in Fiber Optics from Denver to Albuquerque and passed through this area he told my friend who is a local UFO Researcher that Durango, Co ordered a couple of lines so they would have enough for the future and Dulce, a very small Apache Reservation ordered 100. ??? I volunteered to help with our now defunct UFO Conference and met many of the Big Guys in UFO research. Most impressive was Travis Walton's talk. The movie "Fire in the Sky" was about his experience. I guess this was his first talk since and came because one of our organizers was his friend. He broke down half way through. SOMETHING happened to him.
I've had friends go camping in Carson Nat Forest. One minute their steaks were defrosting on the cooler. The next they were totally warm. This triggered their memories of being zapped by a Blue Light which froze them.
So who knows whats up. I just don't want to experience it. I've got enough on my plate as it is.
I have experienced people who can't think beyond their reptilian brain. LOL And there are a lot of stories from the Navajo Rez about Shapeshifters.
Hi , Sena,
Haha yes, i was in Sri Lanka in the early 90's + i know what you mean by quite a few geckos , almost as bad as the cheeky little monkeys you have.
I'm sure that Seth has said somewhere in his works that many of the animals we
have in our reality are in fact the dominant species in other realities + such is the case with our reptiles. So yes looking at them in a new light might be quite rewarding in some ways , good luck with them .
peace, paul
Hi Beth ,
sounds interesting about the beings you have telepathic contact with , i would like to hear a little more of this if you would.
Et's are mostly benign but there are the one's who once lived here on earth who have had problems with gross genetic manipulaton + have almost strerilised themselves + cannot reproduce so come here for new genetic stock to help stabilise + refresh their own genetics + to save their species . I believe that most abductions come under this banner + they do not wish us harm but can be clumsy in their comings + goings with some folks but i also understand that they will make up for this to those whom they have frightened + there are some much more pleasant suprises in store for their 'donors' one day in the future.
Some of the et's have actually helped stall some of the more nefarious nuclear designs our own gov's have had so in some ways it balances itself out. I have heard that there are some folks here who quite well understand + accept the conditions of their 'abductions' but i am not one of them so i cannot spk of their expereiences. Generally the et's hypnosis techniques are successful in blocking out the memory of the whole process but sometimes as in the case of your frieinds etc they cannot cover all their tracks.
Yes the Navajo's have known about this for a long long time.
I remember the film fire in the sky, difficult thing to go thru for some.
Hope you keep well , paul
sounds interesting about the beings you have telepathic contact with , i would like to hear a little more of this if you would.
This is too complicated to put on a public forum
(http://empireonline.media/jpg/80/0/0/1000/563/0/north/0/0/0/0/0/t/films/7453/images/lALaxxUVJoZMeRcW3HfvG7QoDua.jpg)
You can email me if you like Beth , if you can't find my email then Deb will direct you to it .
If not no problem I understand certain sensitivities + being personal .
I always like the pictures etc you put in your posts even if like the rothschilds one they make my blood boil they always ultimately do me some good , cheers .
peace , paul
It's not so much about being secretive as I am not sure what is going on and do not want to lead anyone down a Blind Alley.
Being a part of Deb's Seth forum opened a can of worms for me,
(http://www.albanesecandy.com/candy-store/images/products/popup/sugar-free-mini-assorted-fruit-gummi-worms_2.jpg?v=1426354732)
in that having a place that is based on Seth Tech is great and shifted my personal reality because I had folks to talk to. Most people can't deal with me because many of my decisions are based on Seth. Such as when I didn't renew my insurance after my divorce. All my nurse friends were scandalized. ;D
I greatly appreciate what Deb has done.
Because of the butterfly effect it threw my Grid off balance and I got to deal with this.
(http://rlv.zcache.com.au/vintage_arthur_rackham_alice_in_wonderland_art_greeting_card-rf5e0c6fd29c6424bb6a2b4b1c1144683_xvuat_8byvr_324.jpg)
Check out my Blog. It was intended to leave Bread Crumbs for my kids in case I disappeared! LOL
http://bethnm.blogspot.com/ (http://bethnm.blogspot.com/)
Quote from: BethAnne on April 30, 2016, 01:42:46 PMBeing a part of Deb's Seth forum opened a can of worms for me,
Hah, good thing they're gummy worms. That's positive!
I'm very happy that you like the forum, you're certainly a pleasure and have a lot to contribute. The feeling is mootual (to quote from Young Frankenstein).
Now I'm off to study your breadcrumbs.
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=4598#msg4598)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 .
The idea that we in our current state have access to such as place as the void is very interesting to me. For all intents and purposes, I've long thought we were meant to be as we are, shut off from anything other than the current camouflage reality. But of course all of what Seth spoke about was trying to help us get in touch with the resources and unlimited knowledge available to us, at least as far as framework 2. Regaining the abilities we'd lost during our intellectual evolution. But the void... goes back, waaay back, to the source of all?
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=4631#msg4631)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 ?
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=4606#msg4606)But Joe's goal is to get people into that void state,
the state of no-one, no-where, no-thing,
It almost seems like Joe's concept or interpretation of the void is a little different than what you're explaining, because in his void there is thought. He could be trying to get us all into F2. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what he's saying, not separating consciousness from thought, since I can't imagine (from where I currently stand) consciousness without thought.
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=4631#msg4631)paul; I will eventually get round to describing my
vairious void states.
So there are more levels, more void states...? The jhana states you mention?
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=5121#msg5121)Why is formlessness + void so attractive to the likes of me ?
Your desire to be in the void reminds me very much of stories told by people who have had near death experiences and didn't want to come back. They had to drag themselves away from the feeling of acceptance, wholeness, bliss, pure love they experienced over "there" (where ever they went) and were looking forward to dying for real. Interesting enough, I've never heard of any of them offing themselves in their need to get back there. Maybe no one talks about that. Or it could be because they came back understanding the meaning and purpose of life here with a renewed sense of purpose.
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=5121#msg5121)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.
Yep, now that you mention it. But I envision creation and progress as a sort of loop: we came from the source to various existences to learn and grow and experience not only for ourselves, but the source as well. Sort of like soldiers going off to foreign wars, we are here to achieve certain goals and then eventually return to source when we're done incarnating. Where did Seth go? Jane? We don't know for sure, but it sounds like they're not coming back, here at least.
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=5121#msg5121)What is left when there are not even thoughts or images of any kind ? What is consciousness here ?
Lots to explore. I have so many questions.
Quote from: barrie (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=5257#msg5257)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.
Quote from: barrie (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=5257#msg5257)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.
It would be really helpful if quotations from Seth could be included with comments so those of us (me) who haven't read all of the books yet can track things down and, maybe, what Seth DID actually say so we (me) can develop our own interpretations if Seth wasn't clear about something.
I really enjoyed your, ummm, discourses with
@barrie, hopefully he returns.
I'd better stop here for now, I could go on all day with just this one topic. I'll save my questions for other posts so as to not overwhelm.
Hi Paul, I recently returned from vacation and just today was able to find your post--the one you mentioned. So, I'll read it and respond as soon as I can. Just to let you know that I haven't dropped out or skipped town.
Barrie
Hi Barrie ,
nice to hear from you , hope you + all had an enjoyable holiday .
Look forward to more 'jousting' .
Fascinating questions Deb , you said
'' But of course all of what Seth spoke about was trying to help us get in touch with the resources and unlimited knowledge available to us, at least as far as framework 2. Regaining the abilities we'd lost during our intellectual evolution. But the void... goes back, waaay back, to the source of all?''
Paul ;
As far as i'm concerned yes the deepest pure void state + nonbeing are a part of source or ATI + inseperable .*
Seth said , the very 1st creation of ATI was an unendurable mass with no weight .
Try + imagine what an unend' mass of no weight might actually be .
unend' mass , no weight .
Absolutely nothing else
In terms of the Divine Being we are talking about , this must have been quite an incredible , infinite reality .
an 'appearence' of absolutely nothing else but pure mass/no weight .
no weight , nothing to hold it back so to spk from its own unendurable massivness .
cons' beings have not been seeded into it yet , so no weight .
When the cons' beings are seeded into the unend' mass , this is the weight
that moves it out of tranquility + quiescent potential
+ is the moment point of the blinding flash of creation .
An unendurable mass of no weight is not that hard to imagine as a void .
There is no thing within it , so it is formless ,
This mass takes up no space , as we concieve space to be .
there are no thoughts within it as it has not yet been seeded with con's
there is no action within it , it is entirely passive potential +
Divine tranquility .
The female Aspect of ATI or 'His' Divine Femininity.
it is of ATI , so it is of cons' .
for me it is the 1st primal void state , pure unadulterated mass (energy) of no weight no space + no action , a purely passive , receptive state .
The 1st creation of ATI .
given the fact that ATI had not yet filled it with all the prob' + poss' of cons' , it is in a sense an emptyness to be filled + momentarily seperate from all of ATI's cons' creation , that are still as yet ''held'' in prob' suspension within Him
To me, this unend' mass was ''exuded'' from ATI as He held all of His creation in suspension / non-being + agonised in His searching for the ways + means to actuality +
set His Creations Free .
I believe it was ATI's Deep , singular ''meditation'' + concentration that 'caused' the unend' mass to exude from Himself .
like the ''ether'' that some psychics/mystics can exude when they are in a deep communion.
I mean singular in the sense that He was alone with this agonising dilemma
i believe , quite literally , that
when ATI completely immersed Himself into Searching ,
that 1st He put into ''suspension + non-being''
All of His Cons' Creation
SO he could intensely concentrate His Divine awareness entirely into the agonised searching +
so as to protect His cons' creations from the
unparralleled agonising He went through on scales that would have obliterated any one part of His Own Creations or driven them insane if they had Felt such Agonising + Painful unfulfilled Desires of Creation , with no means to fulfill them .
It was this inner concentration + agonising that in itself brought about the means to be + that caused the ''energy'' of the unendurable mass to exude from Him .
The unend' mass became the means by which ATI could let His creations free .
His Divine, Intense Internal concentration + meditation caused the unend' mass to ''appear'' or exude from His Being .
some call it the Divine or Cosmic Egg
Seth said , that if Ati could not have concentrated enough of His energies then He may not have made the Breakthroughs that He did . This is of upmost impotance to me as i think it is because of the incredible intensity of ATI's inner searching that the unendurable mass was produced , sort of like a by-product , of the intensity of His Infinite Inner Concentration .
When ATI released all of His Creation from the suspension of all probabilities + possibilities (He had put them into) in His Mind , He released them into this primal void state or, unendurable mass of no weight .
I sometimes wonder how a scientist would view an unend' mass of no weight if indeed they would entertain such a thought .
Personally i cannot help but come to the conclusion that it is indeed synonymous with a void state as , absolutely nothing is there , but pure energy or mass of no weight, taking up no space or time + entirely passive , no action .
The unend' mass or void can be said to be an expansion of ATI but seeing as ATI is beyond such things as time + space so this expansion must not be seen as existent in either time or space but beyond these designations entirely . Void or unend' mass/no weight is not easily grasped by the intellect , when that intellect must use time + space as its basic tools to conceptualise .
It is only the intuitions that can comprehend void , or an unend' mass/no weight that exists neither in space or time + has no action or does not act within itself , but it is aware + cons' of its being . There is also feeling or emotion of the pure potential energy that it is . It is aware that it is void .
And it collapses simultaneously + instantaneously around + into , each infinite being of cons' that ATI seeds into it .
If even the slightest thought is added to an otherwise 'empty' mass of no weight then
of course some weight is added + bestirs the still + tranquil waters of void + creates an action within a previously inactive or potential state .
The 1st vibration so to spk in a no-thingness , + this will have endless + infinite repurcussions . The slightest weight of cons' will 'tip' the void , out of the darkness into the light .
I think that the primal void or unend' mass contains the passive energy potentials (+ blueprints) + is not in + of itself active , it is a receptive/femenine state , + into this ATI pours all of His Psychic Conscious Potentials/beings + BANG the action errupts .
Action that is not active is pure potential , this is void.
This void or unend' mass is like a womb , receptive , quiescent , tranquil , awaiting seeding + fruition . It is a part of cons' because ATI has produced it thru His immense agonised concentration + is Of Him , but it is yet still seperate from the cons' beings in suspension/nonbeing within ATI's mind . In a sense the void was born out of or a by product of the agony that ATI felt (which He protected His cons' creations from) .
Nothing moves , it waits in eternity , it is awake + aware of itself (only) , it is cons' but it does not move or bestir itself in any direction . It is Tranquility in the purest sense.
Until ATI pours all of His creation into it , then actualised creation + time + space begin
the unendurable mass quote is from Dreams, evolution ; session 883 .
The nonbeing quote is from The Seth material , chapter 18 .
At this time , this is the best i can do to describe some of the oddities of my void states + yes Deb there are several layers or states to go thru before pure void + then nonbeing .
Pure void + nonbeing are the deepest of void states or jhana , Deb .
Don't mind if anyone wants to try + rip into this as i know how imperfect a description it is , so help yourselves , it will help me in the long run . Cheers .
peace , paul .
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6034#msg6034)Seth said , the very 1st creation of ATI was an unendurable mass with no weight .
OK, I'm sorry if I'm going to disappoint you here, but I tend to sometimes get hung up on words, my only current way to understand communications being conveyed to me. I'm not as psychically attuned as I'd like to be, or even as I should be. Well, sometimes I am. I have the feeling that I am right where I belong, on this plane that I currently occupy. Kindergarten. Unfortunately, no precociousness here. So I'll offer my ignorance to you and just slog away with unendurable questions.
Question one: Can you better define "unendurable mass without weight" ? I can maybe grasp the concept of mass without weight, but I don't understand the unendurable part. Why unendurable mass? My internal definition of unendurable is not able to be tolerated, unbearable. So I don't understand that phrase, and I think my understanding is key to my understanding beyond this first step. Seth lost me a while ago explaining the Beginning as three dilemmas of ATI or something like that: again, me getting hung up on words. Unendurable? Dilemma? Apparently I'm not a complete dolt, or I would not be pursuing these questions.
Your (thankfully) long description of the Beginning (you were repetitive, which I needed and drove the concepts home, per se) smacked to me of the human creation/birth process. As if, we, as humans, are repeating the original creation of reality with the creation of each human introduced into this reality. As is above, so below.
Did you catch that? Cosmic Egg. Exude. Womb. Seeding + fruition. Creation. Born of agony.
Where did ATI come from? How was ATI created? Or exist, before the birth of the void? These are questions I've had all of my life, that science/physics/dork public school never answered. Contemplating infinity goes not only forwards, but backwards as well.
I completely understand the need to create. The loneliness that ATI must have felt when It first became self-aware WAS unendurable. I can relate. But for me the idea of the sudden existence of ATI makes me think that there was something before that spark of ATI consciousness came to be. THAT alone has captured my imagination and made my mind and train of thought derail—since I was a child.
We have much more to discuss about your void state, at least much more from my perspective. You seem to have a comfortable relationship with it.
This post is just my first reaction to yours. I have more to add (more questions) in the near future.
Hi Deb,
you said ,
'' So I'll offer my ignorance to you and just slog away with unendurable questions.''
Paul ; haha good one .
You are an extremely bright + intellient woman Deb . I fail to understand why you dismiss your keen insights in such a way sometimes except that you may have some wierd deprecating humour or rabid modesty i'm missing here . Personally i percieve someone much deeper than this shilly shallying . Please don't put youself down , or else , ok .
I deeply appeciate what you have to offer in many ways , my little miss administrator + it is your intuitve + intelligent curiosity that i find most refreshing thank you .
So that said ,
you asked ;
Deb ;
''Can you better define "unendurable mass without weight" ? I can maybe grasp the concept of mass without weight, but I don't understand the unendurable part. Why unendurable mass? My internal definition of unendurable is not able to be tolerated, unbearable.
Paul ;
Good question ,
+ you're right , this mass was/is intolerably massive +
unbearable to behold or sustain . It is beyond all concepts or ideas of space + time or massiveness .
ATI cannot help but create + even when He put all of His cons' dreams into suspension + non-being + at that 'juncture' did not create more cons' beings , still His Divine energy even though directed inwards into solving His primary dilemma still had an effect that was real + 'tangible' upon the 'environment' He inhabited .
Like the 'vibes' of a person filling a room but in this sense they coalesced into what is known of as void .
i'm not even sure that ATI knew what He had done or what effects He was producing by His intense internal concentration . He was trying something new out of the Divine love + compassion He felt for that which He had already created + wished to set free.
Void is an expansion inwards/outwards + in all directions simultaneously by all portions/parts of itself , of mass energy or pure ATI energy expressed as mass , which is alive + aware within itself + cons , but the production of which becomes unendurable even for ATI Himself as it is of His own 'fibre' + energy that it is made or produced .
There is nothing in human terms that could describle such a mass , which reaches simultaneously inwards in all poss' directions as it does 'outwards' . But there is not actually any direction in this field . It is more like , that every warp , weft + fibre of this mass is endowed with a multidimensional awareness/action , within the inf' 'levels' of itself
It is not until ATI makes the connections within Himself about the means to make His creation manifest that He became simultaneously aware of what He had done in creating this unendurable mass out of Himself + which became the 'portion' of Himself that he gave up or lost when He poured His own cons' creations into it + let go .
It became unendurable to sustain such a pure energy mass state , + this in a sense woke Him from His divine revery . This mass would be cosmic beyond all proportion . It is a state of transcendence in that there is absolutely no limitation or boundary to it in any concievable 'direction'
or by any means , except that of ATI Himsef + even He could not contain it but used it to pour His creations into .
In a sense this primal void was also made up of all of the blueprints for the infinite realities that were needed for each of His Divine cons' creations , which He knew could not exist within His own mind . These blueprints were also produced out of His massive cosmic meditation .
The energy of the mass is a direct effect produced by ATI from the intense concentration of His agonising + searching . His meditation produced it ,so it is alive , cons' , intensely activated pure mass/energy . It is a part or portion of ATI's own Divine Being but expanded or exuded from Him as He focused more + more of His Infinite Energy inwards + internally , this mass was produced in direct relation + proportion to His massive subjective inner drive toward freeing the Creation from His Superlative + Divine Mind .
It is a similar effect but on an infinitesimally minute scale, as that when a person is intensely concentrated in some way either positively or negatively + another person enters the room + can more or less immeadiately pick up on these vibrations + ascertain the mood of that person . More reflections .
Again you are absolutely correct in surmising that
Deb ;
''it smacked to me of the human creation/birth process. As if, we, as humans, are repeating the original creation of reality with the creation of each human introduced into this reality. As is above, so below.
Did you catch that? Cosmic Egg. Exude. Womb. Seeding + fruition. Creation. Born of agony''
Paul ;
Yep , caught that one lttle miss clever clogs , hehe .
All of creation , at whatever 'level' , reflects these principals or modalities of creation in one way or another . The birth process of course , an artist who struggles to recreate the living artwork inside of him/her , the struggle to become what we wish + hope we can be , the falling down + the lifting up , are all in some small personal ways , a reflection of the struggle of ATI to create + set free those creations from inside of Himself . Even your questioning as a child .
Your intuition is spot on Deb , as above so below . Refections of divinity .
This clever + deep thinking person then asked ;
Deb ;
''Where did ATI come from? How was ATI created? Or exist, before the birth of the void?''
Paul ;
Brilliant , in simplicity + depth my dear ,
No one knows , not even ATI , where He came from , nor from what . But ,
He does know that He came from 'something' , that there must have been 'another' that was the source of His own awakening + awareness . So HE ever eternally , infinitely searches His own origins . I'm sure Seth has said somewhere that this searching is the basis of all reality + the creation of ever more newer realities that can be probed + searched for answers + in doing so ever more realities come into being without cease .
No one knows , it is the greatest mystery of all . If you've been asking these questions since childhood Deb then you are a far deeper thinker than i'd imagined , it is the deep + mysterious in you that asks , + it is supremely good . One day you will connect with your inner transcendence , i'm sure of this . If not i'll bite my own head off + throw it at you .
It was ATI who created the Divine Void that underpins all of created reality , + it may be that ATI was in fact seeded into a void Himself , but He was nevertheless left to His own devices + loneliness to find out for Himself who or what He was , as in a sense we all are . That reflection thing again .
There are in my experience of these void states , reflections of ATI's own initial awakening but they are extremely subtle + difficult to untangle from the void itself , She still holds many secrets from me . More or less my whole life has been spent in probing this inf' void + one day i will try + seduce Her secrets out of Her again + maybe this time she will not spit me out + blow my mind again haha , i hope .
you then said ;
Deb ;
''We have much more to discuss about your void state, at least much more from my perspective. You seem to have a comfortable relationship with it.''
Paul ;
I hope so Deb i deeply enjoy your insightful , intuitive + on the mark questions .
Comfortable may not be the best description , but i most certainly do have an intimate relationship with it . She is much much bigger + more expansive than i could ever be , me weeping into my dirty sweaty string vest again .
You then said ;
Deb ;
''This post is just my first reaction to yours. I have more to add (more questions) in the near future.''
Paul ;
Questions of such import , + to you are just a first reaction ??? Wow i'm for a grilling when you really get going then , are'nt i .
You're unquenchable + incorrigable + i love it . It really does help me to put some of this voidy business into perspective + make it somewhat understandable , sort of , to more people , ta .
Anyone for tea .
peace , paul
The level of reflection in life astounds me more and more.
The birth analogy, reflecting the Divine is one such example. Nature is so full of answers and expressions of the mysteries of the Creative Source.
How many times I have heard the expression that all the drops of the ocean make up the sea. Nothing being really seperate, as the waves of conciousness move to and fro.
Or the seasonal rebirth of the leaves and flowers in the trees. The Earth feeding the trunk, and the branches reaching out and expressing, while the invisible roots expreesing in their own subterranean reality. While the compost from last season feed back into the Earth.
Or the giant cosmos with its spinning planets mirroring the spinning molecules on the microscopic level.
Or clearing the mind like a bright blue sky, free from the dark clouds that block the view of the bright sun; our beliefs blocking our inner light.
You guys really bring the poet out of me...LOL
LK
Hi LenKop ,
groovy + poetical response , really like it . It says in such lovely + simple terms the interconnectedness of all beings of whatever import , you're a real earth soul are'nt you , a great quality to have + i also like your considered intellectual approach to these things too that i see in your posts .
Keep on goovin me old fruit
peace , paul
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6064#msg6064)You are an extremely bright + intellient woman Deb . I fail to understand why you dismiss your keen insights in such a way sometimes except that you may have some wierd deprecating humour or rabid modesty i'm missing here . Personally i percieve someone much deeper than this shilly shallying . Please don't put youself down , or else , ok .
Oh man, Paul, keep up the compliments and I may never stop asking you questions. I dismiss my "keen insights" because most people I know think I'm looney tunes for not following the official line of consciousness. I just see myself as someone with an insatiable sense of curiosity and for a person who only came across the Seth materials a few years ago, somewhat retarded, lol. Not to dismiss that I took to the Seth materials like a clam takes to low tide in a Louisiana bayou. And maybe I feel just a little embarrassed that I created this Seth forum and probably have read less Seth books than anyone else here. But I'm sincere in my passion for the Seth materials and as I've said before, I have other talents to bring to the table. OK, 'nuff of that. On to the good stuff.
My mental visuals during your explanation of ATI are that
(1) ATI was/is consciousness, but until the very beginning as we know it, it was consciousness without self-awareness. We still have life forms on this plane that are conscious but not self-aware. At least, that's the theory. So a part of me can comprehend that: a sleeping consciousness. Then a dreaming consciousness. Then a lucid dreaming consciousness with deliberate creation. My visual was of an eye slowly opening in the cosmos.
(2) When was It created? Maybe ATI was not created so much as always in existence. No beginning, no end, it just has always been. Something many of us mortals can't comprehend, from our perspective, because in our current existence we look for beginnings and endings and answers so we can label things and go on to the next puzzle. ATI is in the void, the void is in ATI. As we are.
(3) So, maybe once ATI became self-aware, it also became aware of its purpose (to create) and also that it was ALONE. That, to me, is where the unbearable part comes into play. The need and ability to create and no one, no thing to share it with.
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6064#msg6064)No one knows , not even ATI , where He came from , nor from what . But ,
He does know that He came from 'something' , that there must have been 'another' that was the source of His own awakening + awareness . So HE ever eternally , infinitely searches His own origins . I'm sure Seth has said somewhere that this searching is the basis of all reality + the creation of ever more newer realities that can be probed + searched for answers + in doing so ever more realities come into being without cease
That's profound. I wondered about that too, before I came up with my "it's always been" thought. That's the stuff mythology is made from. Sleeping giants. The source wanting to find it's own source. The house of mirrors.
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6064#msg6064)More or less my whole life has been spent in probing this inf' void + one day i will try + seduce Her secrets out of Her again + maybe this time she will not spit me out + blow my mind again haha , i hope .
Thank you for your explanations, they give me a better understanding now of what Seth was talking about, at least as much as I've read so far.
Your experience with the Void made me search for examples of EEG readings done by Joe Dispenza. Once I get my hands on the book again (hopefully today), I'll scan and put up some photos so you can see what happens in the brain when someone is in meditative rapture as compared to the normal awake state. Some readings were so far out of range that the equipment couldn't keep track, they had to recalibrate. Readings that doctors would interpret as having a grand mal seizure, although the people having these spikes were blissfully peaceful and came back with some amazing stories to tell. Really impressive.
Tea? Yes please. Hah, I usually bring tea with me when I travel and realized at one point that I will NOT need to do it this time, I'm going to the source of my favorite tea. I wonder if they give plant tours? Celestial Seasons out here does. Boy howdy, the peppermint room is a real eye-opener.
A quick question for you (or anyone reading this): I'll be taking one Seth book on the plane with me. Out of
Dreams, Evolution and Value Fulfillment One; Adventures in Consciousness; and
The Unknown Reality One, which would you recommend? Or would recommend something different? I have a cache of Seth books I haven't read yet... I downloaded
Dreams and Projections of Consciousness to Kindle, but still prefer reading "real" books on planes.
PS
OMG!!! I was just going through some Hubble photos to add to a new topic and found this one (attached) that reminded me of my mental vision of the creation of the void. As I was staring at it, it reminded me of a painting I was "forced" to do (I'm not an abstract person) last year. Check it out:
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=1139#msg1139)My one and only ever abstract. Acrylic on canvas. 16" X 20". Don't ask me what it's about, I have no clue. It just happened. Maybe it's my entity, keeping a eye out for me. :)
Hi Paul,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Seth does not originate his own material, but receives it from Seth2, therefore the material is not coming from Seth, but rather from Seth2. Not only I do I disagree with this, but when it is true, I believe it is not in the human manner with the human separations of self that you insert into these comments.
So, I disagree with your interpretations. There are a number of things going on in these comments. In part, Seth2 is talking about when Seth2 is giving information. At first, Seth had to interpret it; and then, eventually, Jane was able to get it herself from within from Seth, and speak the words herself.
In other words, at first, when Seth2 tried to give information, Seth just had to translate it in his own "voice." As Jane got better as a medium, she was able to get the information in Seth2's voice—altho I believe Seth still had to do some translating within Jane, so to speak.
Sometimes everything is pure 100 percent Seth and other times Seth is translating information from Seth2, and putting it into his own words—but to use metaphors—this would be more like a focal personality, or person, responding to its own inspiration, than it is like person getting information from another person.
The person and his inspiration are not separate; but two people are. On Seth's entity level, there is no separation of self as we know or experience it on Earth as focal personalities.
Seth2 (Session 408): He is much more aware of our relationship however than you are of your relationship to him
Barrie NOW Comments: So, as a person may speak and move back and forth between his creativity, inspiration and stream-of-consciousness comments, and then go back to his intellectual thoughts and thinking—and have may happen repeatedly thru a long discussion or writing process—is what I believe happens within Seth as he gives the material—but instead of calling it Seth's stream of consciousness—at HIS level, where the Selves are not separated as our functionally are—it is actually Seth2. That is, Seth's relationship to Seth2 is CLOSER to our relationship to our own stream-of-consciousness, than it is to our relationship between two separate beings or two separate selves.
To put another way, Seth2 would be much closer to Seth's deeper thoughts, than to a whole other self. Thus, Seth IS Seth2; and Seth2 is Seth—but more expansive, so to speak.
Seth2 (Session 407): "Seth is what I am, and yet I am more than Seth is. Seth is however independent (smile, eyes open), and continues to develop as I continue to develop also. (Smile.) In the spacious present you see, we both exist.
Barrie NOW Comments: Remember, Seth has a totally hugely different conscious awareness of and interaction within the spacious present than we consciously do as focal personalities in F1.
So, I do not believe that the whole Seth material is not Seth. Why do I say that? For a number of reasons, but let's look at this one. Look at what Seth says (CAPS FOR EMPHASIS) regarding "another personality" which is Seth2:
Seth (Session 588): "Now: The soul knows itself, and is not confused by terms or definitions. Through showing you the nature of my own reality, I hope to teach you the nature of your own.
"You are not bound to any category or corner of existence. Your reality cannot be measured any more than mine. I hope to illustrate the function of consciousness and personality through writing this book and enlarging your concepts.
"Now I began by telling you that I was dictating this material through the auspices of a woman of whom I was quite fond. Let me now tell you that there are other realities involved. THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS WILL BE WRITTEN BY ANOTHER PERSONALITY, who stands relatively in the same position to me as I stand to the woman through whom I am now speaking."
Barrie Comments: IF the "following paragraphs will be written by another personality," then it obviously implies that the previous paragraphs where NOT written by another possibility.
Then came Rob's notes:
Rob's notes (mid Session 588): "(Pause at 11 :51. I now watched a transformation begin to take place in Jane, as our familiar Seth retreated and Seth Two began to come to the fore. At the same time I knew that subjectively Jane was experiencing the feeling of a "cone" or "pyramid" coming down over the top of her head. Jane has often told me that whereas she feels Seth come to her in a very warm and alive and friendly manner, she feels her consciousness going out of herself to meet Seth Two – 'up the invisible pyramid like a draft up a flue.' She doesn't know where she goes or how she gets back. Her body seems to be left behind.
(Jane sat very formally in her Kennedy rocker, her forearms upon the arms of the chair, her feet flat upon the rug. lt was a muggy night; our living room windows were open, and now I became conscious of traffic noise. I heard someone moving about in the apartment upstairs.
(Jane's eyes were closed, but occasionally they opened slightly. She smiled faintly as she spoke far Seth Two. The voice that began to issue from her was very high, very distant and formal with little volume ar emphasis. Each ward was carefully and deliberately, almost delicately, spoken. It was as though Seth Two wasn't familiar with vocal chords or words, and so took pains to use those mechanisms in just the right way. The contrast between the two Seths couldn't have been mare complete.)
Barrie NOW Comments: Here are those next paragraphs Seth speaks of:
Seth2 (Session 588): "We are the voices who speak without tongues of our own. We are sources of that energy from which you come. We are creators, yet we have also been created. We seeded your universe as you seed other realities.
"We do not exist in your historical terms, nor have we known physical existence. Our joy created the exaltation from which your world comes. Our existence is such that communication must be made by others to you.
"Verbal symbols have no meaning for us. Our experience is not translatable. We hope our intent is. In the vast infinite scope of consciousness, all is possible. There is meaning in each thought We perceive your thoughts as lights. They form patterns. (Each syllable was so carefully and separately pronounced.)
"Because of the difficulties of communication, it is nearly impossible for us to explain our reality. Know only that we exist. We send immeasurable vitality to you, and support all of those structures of consciousness with which you are familiar. You are never alone. (Pause.) We have always sent emissaries to you who understand your needs. Though you do not know us, we cherish you.
"Seth is a point in my reference, in our reference. He is an ancient portion of us. (Pause.) We are separate but united. (Long pause.) Always the spirit forms the flesh."
Barrie NOW Comments: So, first off, THOSE paragraphs were written by Seth2. This means that the other paragraphs were written by Seth.
Second: To try to separate Seth and Seth2 in the manner that you try, does not really fit who and what they are. They are not people like we are. When we speak of us humans, we can say there really is no separation between selves, and so forth, but for practical F1 purposes there ARE these separations—like between conscious, subconscious and unconscious, between various incarnations, between focal personalities and entities, etc. There really is NO separation, but from the focal personality's perspective—there is and has to be.
Seth2 (Session 408): He is much more aware of our relationship however than you are of your relationship to him
Barrie NOW Comments: SO from Seth's perspective, this type of human, F1-purpose separation—just doesn't exist for it is not needed—and so Seth and Seth 2 are really more like aspects of the same Self. To use an analogy, with humans, you can't really separate inspiration from the intellectual writing process, altho they are separate—they are united together in practical ways which make them "one." You wouldn't look at them as two separate personalities. One called "inspiration" and the other "intellect." They are part of the same personality, the focal personality. We said, "Fred's inspiration is amazing. "Fred's intellect is amazing."
I believe this is MORE like the relationship between Seth and Seth2—as far as we human's can understand it. But I do not believe their relationship in THEIR practical sense is like any person's is to their own entity—which usually remaims quite "hidden" from the waking, conscious F1 self in any practical way.
Thus, Seth2 says:
Seth2: "Seth is a point in my reference, in our reference. He is an ancient portion of us. (Pause.) We are separate but united. (Long pause.) Always the spirit forms the flesh."
Barrie NOW Comments: So, to say that Seth2 gives the information to Seth, and Seth just translates it—is way too human an interpretation—seeing an entity like Seth—as an equivalent of one focal personality—and then comparing that one focal personality's to Seth. Seth & Seth2 may have the same descriptive type of relationship. but NOT the same substantive type.
Now, let's go back and look at Session 407:
Seth2 (Session 407): "Seth is what I am, and yet I am more than Seth is. Seth is however independent (smile, eyes open), and continues to develop as I continue to develop also. (Smile.) In the spacious present you see, we both exist.
"Some material he can present to you more clearly than I. This was particularly true up to this present point. (Pause. I wondered: if Seth isn't speaking now, who is?) He is closer to you in personality makeup and closer to your reality, therefore he could transmit ideas to Ruburt in more understandable terms than I.
"There was a point, you see, of interpretation and translation (pause) as Seth interpreted material from me in such a way that Ruburt could then receive it. At our last session, with the greater efficiency and the development on Ruburt's part (pause), the material was more direct, and the translation at his end automatic and smoothly performed."
Barrie NOW Comments: As I interpret this in our human terms, and IN METAPHOR, sometimes Seth speaks to us using HIS conscious mind; and sometimes HIS subconscious mind. And in that light, "some material he (Seth) can present more clearly than I (Seth2).
This is more like Seth's subconscious mind, then another Self. When Seth2 first tried to speak, Seth interpreted Seth2 in order for Jane to receive what he said. Now, here, Seth2 can speak for himself, but still with Seth translating it—but now Jane can speak those translations instead of Seth speaking them for her.
Other times, it may just be Seth speaking entirely on his own, so to speak; and other times translating what Seth2 is saying but saying it is his own voice—which in OUR metaphor would be like a person speaking "stream of consciousness."
Let's again look at this from Session 408:
Seth2 (Session 408): "Your first Seth is independent, and I am independent. (Pause.) Because he is a part of my reality does not mean that he is less an individual. My reality simply includes more, now, within your particular coordinates; and that last is important.
"He is another aspect of me while being himself. (Pause.) In your terms, I am a guide he also follows. He is much more aware of our relationship however than you are of your relationship to him. (Pause; well over one minute long.) Your time is required...
Barrie NOW Comments: It would be like someone saying that Barrie does not write his poems because he gets them, in part, large or small, from his inner voice, his inner self, his guide, etc etc. This would be foolish to say, to separate me as not me or not writing my poems because I get things separate from my ordinary conscious mind. In the same manner, you can say that I don't dream, that no one dreams because these dreams, also, come from an alternative source, other than the waking conscious self.
(http://www.popoptiq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/motherj3.jpg)
(http://www.quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors80/tmb/tom-robbins-quote-philosophers-have-argued-for-centuries-about-how-man.jpg)
Hi to you too barrie ,
well here goes , you said ,
Barrie ;
Hi Paul,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Seth does not originate his own material, but receives it from Seth2, therefore the material is not coming from Seth, but rather from Seth2. Not only do I disagree with this, but when it is true, I believe it is not in the human manner with the human separations of self that you insert into these comments.
paul ;
no i don't think you understand me or Seth correctly Barrie .
where have I inserted human seperations ?
I simply gave you the quotes to read saying that S2 originated the material for the sessions.
I did not say that Seth did not originate his own mat', just not the Seth mat' that is dictated via jane + is the foundation + core of the books , the essential philosophical txt , but not the personal sess' or class sess' etc or any other of Seth's comments or commentaries .
So you go on to say ;
Barrie ;
So, I disagree with your interpretations. There are a number of things going on in these comments. In part, Seth2 is talking about when Seth2 is giving information. At first, Seth had to interpret it; and then, eventually, Jane was able to get it herself from within from Seth, and speak the words herself.
paul;
I had made no interpretations , but you seem to have .
but yes , Jane was able to get the material more or less directly from S2 whilst 'Seth stood aside' in a personal manner as he said , (sort of like a telephone exchange) , just passing the mat' directly thru without his own mark upon it .
Barrie ;
In other words, at first, when Seth2 tried to give information, Seth just had to translate it in his own "voice." As Jane got better as a medium, she was able to get the information in Seth2's voice—altho I believe Seth still had to do some translating within Jane, so to speak.
paul ;
ok , so Jane was able to contact Seth 2 almost directly occasionally whilst Seth 'sat out' so to spk + therefore did not need to translate for S2 for that time but just gave a little helping hand to pass the mat' on to Jane like a medium or channel himself .
What do you mean about the voices , it seems irrelevant .
but yep , still with you here .
Barrie ;
Sometimes everything is pure 100 percent Seth and other times Seth is translating information from Seth2, and putting it into his own words—but to use metaphors—this would be more like a focal personality, or person, responding to its own inspiration, than it is like person getting information from another person.
paul ;
ok , here we part company again . i agree broadly with,
''Sometimes everything is pure 100 percent Seth and other times Seth is translating information from Seth2, and putting it into his own words'' But ,
All of the essential mat' is from S2 wether Seth translates it directly or says it in his own way .
When the mat' is 100% Seth as you say , i think what you should be saying is that it is Seth's 100% translation of the material from Seth 2 .
or,
that Seth is giving personal sess' or some such thing .
Barrie ;
''but to use metaphors—this would be more like a focal personality, or person, responding to its own inspiration, than it is like person getting information from another person.
paul ;
sorry but you are wrong Barrie .
Inspiration as Seth has said comes directly from the inner self + does not originate in the recieving personality (be it Seth or you or whomever).
Also this metaphor about one person + another has nothing to do with the simple statement i made to you + is just a figment of your own imagination . Your contribution , not mine .
In a v broad sense , S2 is a non-phys' being + his reality is 'outside' of the system in which we + Seth have our reality . He is one of the originators of this sys' of reality .
S2 is way beyond Seth + his reality + is quite seperate , in fact they inhabit different dimensions entirely
Even Christ is way beyond Seths abilities + He is a phys' being .
Seth is an expansive personality as far as we are concerned but is a small fish within the greater reality which S2 communicates to him . S2 was never even a phys' being so to make such an insipid metaphor is ludicrous to the extreme .
Barrie;
The person and his inspiration are not separate; but two people are.
paul ;
go back + read your seth then Barie , where he states that inspiration is directly from the inner self + does not origionate in the ego or phys' cons' personality , which is why it seems so alien or from another source because it does not have the stamp of the phys' brain or personal cons' upon it as it comes from beyond the ego + phys' reality.
It is the same with Seth , his insp' comes from beyond the reality in which he has his existence .
Seth did not know of the seth material untill S2 gave it to him , so how much more distinct + different do you need to get .
rubbish metaphor as it does'nt even fit the argument i made , where did i insert 2 people into my statement . This your fabrication not mine thank you .
Barrie ;
On Seth's entity level, there is no separation of self as we know or experience it on Earth as focal personalities.
paul ;
of course there is you numpty but it is just simply of a different order , as Seth is merely a minute fragment of S2's reality . Seth cannot contain the reality of S2 so there is a massive difference in their realities .
S2 does not even have or use self structures himself Barrie , he creates them , like he created the Seth self structure.
S2 communicates the mat' + Seth translates it + teaches it to others , as Jane has done for Seth but what you imply is like saying that Jane is as much the source of Seth's teaching as Seth is himself + this is clearly cobblers .
Seth did not have the mat' until S2 'gave' it to him , as Jane did not have the mat' until Seth gave it to her
Seth puts his mark on the mat' + it appears to originate from him but it is quite clear from the chapters i gave you that S2 is the originator of the mat + they both explain this quite clearly . Seth is but a portion of S2's reality , he is aware of his connection to S2 but he is not S2 , only an independent portion , as we are indep' port's of our own inner selves but we not inner selves (ourselves) yet .
if Seth recieves the mat' from 'outside' of the sys' in which he has his reality then obviously the source is much much more knowlegable than seth + quite seperate + exists in a dimension in which Seth would be quickly overwhelmed , as Jane or you or i would be overwhelmed if we had to face full force the reality in which Seth exists . Of course there is separation Barrie even if only illusory , otherwise all us lowly beings would go insane from too much info' + this includes Seth's position in relation to S2 , Seth would flip out if he was made fully aware of S2 reality .
When we recieve inspiration , it is not from our phys', cons' ego selves but from the inner self , which is what Seth is , Seth is not an entity as is S2 , so he must recieve his inspiration (+ the material) from S2 .
Barrie ;
Seth2 (Session 408): He is much more aware of our relationship however than you are of your relationship to him
Barrie NOW Comments: So, as a person may speak and move back and forth between his creativity, inspiration and stream-of-consciousness comments, and then go back to his intellectual thoughts and thinking—and have may happen repeatedly thru a long discussion or writing process—is what I believe happens within Seth as he gives the material—but instead of calling it Seth's stream of consciousness—at HIS level, where the Selves are not separated as our functionally are—it is actually Seth2. That is, Seth's relationship to Seth2 is CLOSER to our relationship to our own stream-of-consciousness, than it is to our relationship between two separate beings or two separate selves.
paul ;
as i said you have Seths concept of inspiration all wrong + i never once suggested what you say i have about 2 seperate beings or selves , wakey wakey Barrie . You may have been debating with a dolt recently but i expect more from you , + also not to infer something in my comments that is not there + to make futile metaphors from it is nuts , OK
Seth has said , pure inspiration is from the inner self + if the ego can open up to this then for a while as you say he is in the stream + there seems to be no diff' between one + the other , but when his ego closes down this contact , then it is as if the ego self + the inner self are diffrent + in diff' realities + functionally they are . This is pretty much the same with S2 + Seth , when Seth is able , he comm' with S2 but when he is not in comm' with S2 he is simply Seth , but the material he teaches is still from S2 + is not originated by Seth himself . He then passed it on to Jane when he could + teaches it at his level of existence .
Barrie ;
To put another way, Seth2 would be much closer to Seth's deeper thoughts, than to a whole other self. Thus, Seth IS Seth2; and Seth2 is Seth—but more expansive, so to speak.
paul ;
Rubbish , Seth is simply a minute portion of S2's reality which makes S2 a much 'larger' other self + 'he' exists on the other side of Seth's uncons' which seperates them , as we are seperated from our own inner selves by our own uncons' , (which is a 'barrier' that unites as well as seperates; Seth) so it is certainly not like deeper thoughts on Seths part , as you put it . S2 does not even have thoughts as we know them Barrie , which presents another level of seperation because Seth does have + use thoughts .
S2 exists more in a void state of con's or within Seth's undifferentiated levels , which are formless + have no images or thoughts (as we know them) + are completely 'outside' of Seth's universal system . S2 is totally seperate in most respects from Seths reality in which Seth still uses forms , images + thoughts to comm' his reality + this is
v v v very different from S2's reality . Seth would freak out if he got dumped into S2's reality .
Barrie ;
Seth2 (Session 407): "Seth is what I am, and yet I am more than Seth is. Seth is however independent (smile, eyes open), and continues to develop as I continue to develop also. (Smile.) In the spacious present you see, we both exist.
Barrie NOW Comments: Remember, Seth has a totally hugely different conscious awareness of and interaction within the spacious present than we consciously do as focal personalities in F1.
paul ;
not entirely Barrie , Christ has a far greater knowledge than Seth + He is phys' + alive now + there are others.
Seth himself has not been into the undifferentiated levels (void states) + does not have a personal description of such states, only those given to him by S2 , but S2's existence IS within these undiff' levels . Seth is still within this universal system , which is a seperate dimension from S2's + therefore quite quite different + requires quite different beings to manipulate within them . There is a vast gulf of diffrerence between S2 + Seth .
Because i have experienced Seth's undiff' levels , on several levels , which i call void states , i am aware that there is much more to these formless realities than Seth has ever described even via S2. Seth may possibly have gone on to more fully describe the undiff' areas or levels , but he never claimed to have entered into them at any time in any of the mat' he spoke of , + he has at times described the reality or dimension in which he exists .
Barrie ;
So, I do not believe that the whole Seth material is not Seth. Why do I say that? For a number of reasons, but let's look at this one. Look at what Seth says (CAPS FOR EMPHASIS) regarding "another personality" which is Seth2:
Seth (Session 588): "Now: The soul knows itself, and is not confused by terms or definitions. Through showing you the nature of my own reality, I hope to teach you the nature of your own.
Paul ;
so ? whats your point here Barrie ?.
Except that the same could be said of S2 in relation to Seth .
Barrie ;
"You are not bound to any category or corner of existence. Your reality cannot be measured any more than mine. I hope to illustrate the function of consciousness and personality through writing this book and enlarging your concepts.
Paul ;
same as above , So what ? Nothing to do with S2 being a more or less seperate being to Seth is it.
Barrie ;
"Now I began by telling you that I was dictating this material through the auspices of a woman of whom I was quite fond. Let me now tell you that there are other realities involved. THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS WILL BE WRITTEN BY ANOTHER PERSONALITY, who stands relatively in the same position to me as I stand to the woman through whom I am now speaking."
Barrie Comments: IF the "following paragraphs will be written by another personality," then it obviously implies that the previous paragraphs where NOT written by another possibility.
paul ;
Seth obviously says his own things of course but the mat' that is given to Jane which is not personal in one way or another , is the real material from S2 , Seth interprets what S2 has given him + teaches it to others but S2 is the originator of the actual material , + it never has been Seth as we know him .
Here too you have agreed plainly that S2 is another personality which negates your falacious argument that they are both one + the same . Anyway Seth is a personality essence + S2 is an identity which are very different in sethian terms . Identities come 'before' + therefore create self structures + not the other way around .
PS ; i have to continue this in the following post as a single post cannot contain it all
Ok here's the follow on
Barrie ;
Barrie NOW Comments: Here are those next paragraphs Seth speaks of:
Seth2 (Session 588): "We are the voices who speak without tongues of our own. We are sources of that energy from which you come. We are creators, yet we have also been created. We seeded your universe as you seed other realities.
"We do not exist in your historical terms, nor have we known physical existence. Our joy created the exaltation from which your world comes. Our existence is such that communication must be made by others to you.
"Verbal symbols have no meaning for us. Our experience is not translatable. We hope our intent is. In the vast infinite scope of consciousness, all is possible. There is meaning in each thought We perceive your thoughts as lights. They form patterns. (Each syllable was so carefully and separately pronounced.)
"Because of the difficulties of communication, it is nearly impossible for us to explain our reality. Know only that we exist. We send immeasurable vitality to you, and support all of those structures of consciousness with which you are familiar. You are never alone. (Pause.) We have always sent emissaries to you who understand your needs. Though you do not know us, we cherish you.
"Seth is a point in my reference, in our reference. He is an ancient portion of us. (Pause.) We are separate but united. (Long pause.) Always the spirit forms the flesh."
Barrie NOW Comments: So, first off, THOSE paragraphs were written by Seth2. This means that the other paragraphs were written by Seth.
paul ;
It in no way implies that the when Seth is spkg on his own (when S2 is not directly spkg through him) that he has originated the mat' he teaches , he simply stamps his own personality + exellent philosophical attributes onto the material + passes it on in his own new way, but the origin + SOURCE remains the same , S2 . Seth does not need to spk for S2 directly as he can contain the info' given him by S2 + teach it at any time without the aid of S2
but the source is still from S2 ; always was + always will be .
Barrie ;
Second: To try to separate Seth and Seth2 in the manner that you try, does not really fit who and what they are. They are not people like we are. When we speak of us humans, we can say there really is no separation between selves, and so forth, but for practical F1 purposes there ARE these separations—like between conscious, subconscious and unconscious, between various incarnations, between focal personalities and entities, etc. There really is NO separation, but from the focal personality's perspective—there is and has to be.
Paul ;
i repeat again , i did not propose that S2 + Seth were like people anywhere in my initial comments to you .
Also , S2 states ;
1. That he, S2 is a creator + seeds universes etc .
Seth himself is like a newborn kitten in comparison .
2. S2 has never existed in historical terms , but Seth has + in fact has only recently finished with his reinc' cycle + that obviously shows a massive difference/seperation between them .
3. S2 sent Seth as an emissary to us . S2 created Seth as Seth created Frank Watts , there is always the apparent seperation + hierarchy . Seth is a point in S2's reference + not the other way around , as Frank
Watts is a point in Seths reference + not the other way round .
S2 says , 'We are separate but united.' The seperation is essential or Seth would not exist as he does, but they are united in spirit , as we all are , in ATI , but unless there were the very real seperations we would all suffer a rampant information overload + complete insanity , including Seth .
The seperations are there for our own benefit + the same goes for Seth + S2 .
4. S2's reality includes the Seth reality , not the other way around . Seths reality does not include S2's reality , that is an impossibility , maybe a minute fraction of it so that Seth can then recieve something akin to inspiration + the Seth mat' from S2 , which he then he teaches to others on his level + to jane when she was here .
5. S2 clearly states
All divisions are to some extent arbitrary. The source (underlined) of this material is the same as it has always been .
I , who am the source , (pause) , sent a portion of myself , an independent portion , to you . Seth as you then thought of him , was far more than a delivery boy however , for it was his peculiar personality , + his particular qualities , which gave the material life for you .
He transmitted it in personal terms , made it understandable through a transmutation of himself .
paul ;
How much more of a clear statement do you need Barrie , it is patently obvious that Seth is somewhat more than just a delivery boy but the relationship is quite clear , S2 is the dogs bollox + Seth is recieving
his wisdom + knowledge from him + did NOT originate it himself . Regardless of the fact that they are of the same entity , but that entity IS S2 .
S2 does not exist as some sort of deeper thoughts on Seths behalf as you have stated Barrie , that is another rediculous metaphor as S2 has his existence completely outside of the universal system in which Seth has his reality .
Even Christ goes waaaaaaaay beyond Seth in his abilities + attributes + he lives now , in the flesh .
Barrie ;
Seth2 (Session 408): He is much more aware of our relationship however than you are of your relationship to him
Barrie NOW Comments: SO from Seth's perspective, this type of human, F1-purpose separation—just doesn't exist for it is not needed—and so Seth and Seth 2 are really more like aspects of the same Self. To use an analogy, with humans, you can't really separate inspiration from the intellectual writing process, altho they are separate—they are united together in practical ways which make them "one." You wouldn't look at them as two separate personalities. One called "inspiration" and the other "intellect." They are part of the same personality, the focal personality. We said, "Fred's inspiration is amazing. "Fred's intellect is amazing."
I believe this is MORE like the relationship between Seth and Seth2—as far as we human's can understand it. But I do not believe their relationship in THEIR practical sense is like any person's is to their own entity—which usually remaims quite "hidden" from the waking, conscious F1 self in any practical way.
Thus, Seth2 says:
Seth2: "Seth is a point in my reference, in our reference. He is an ancient portion of us. (Pause.) We are separate but united. (Long pause.) Always the spirit forms the flesh."
Barrie NOW Comments: So, to say that Seth2 gives the information to Seth, and Seth just translates it—is way too human an interpretation—seeing an entity like Seth—as an equivalent of one focal personality—and then comparing that one focal personality's to Seth. Seth & Seth2 may have the same descriptive type of relationship. but NOT the same substantive type.
paul ;
for one , Seth is not an entity , S2 is .
Why is Seths translating of S2's mat' way too human for you barrie ? It is what it is, a translation .
Yet again Barrie , i made no comparisson to focal personalities , you did you bafoon .
Descriptive/substantive ? I think you might mean qualitative/quantative , as Seth + S2 are the same in a qualitative sense, as we all are, but entirely different in a quantative sense as S2 exists in a much much 'higher'
+ seperate dimension than Seth does .
Barrie ;
Now, let's go back and look at Session 407:
Seth2 (Session 407): "Seth is what I am, and yet I am more than Seth is. Seth is however independent (smile, eyes open), and continues to develop as I continue to develop also. (Smile.) In the spacious present you see, we both exist.
"Some material he can present to you more clearly than I. This was particularly true up to this present point. (Pause. I wondered: if Seth isn't speaking now, who is?) He is closer to you in personality makeup and closer to your reality, therefore he could transmit ideas to Ruburt in more understandable terms than I.
"There was a point, you see, of interpretation and translation (pause) as Seth interpreted material from me in such a way that Ruburt could then receive it. At our last session, with the greater efficiency and the development on Ruburt's part (pause), the material was more direct, and the translation at his end automatic and smoothly performed."
Barrie NOW Comments: As I interpret this in our human terms, and IN METAPHOR, sometimes Seth speaks to us using HIS conscious mind; and sometimes HIS subconscious mind. And in that light, "some material he (Seth) can present more clearly than I (Seth2).
paul ;
Try + stop using useless + superfluous metaphors Barrie + you might be able to get a clear point across but you confuse the issue with your over intellectualising + end up straying from the point .
Seth only presents the mat' more clearly than S2 because he is closer to us than S2 is + for absolutely no other reason + this has nothing to do with Seths cons' or subcons' states . S2 could not present the mat' clearly by himself simply because we would not understand it in the form in which he transmits it , hence the need for a Seth to do this job , as a translator + intermediary . But that does not mean in any way that the mat ' originates in Seth but , as allways the source is S2 .
Its that simple Barrie .
Barrie ;
This is more like Seth's subconscious mind, then another Self. When Seth2 first tried to speak, Seth interpreted Seth2 in order for Jane to receive what he said. Now, here, Seth2 can speak for himself, but still with Seth translating it—but now Jane can speak those translations instead of Seth speaking them for her.
Other times, it may just be Seth speaking entirely on his own, so to speak; and other times translating what Seth2 is saying but saying it is his own voice—which in OUR metaphor would be like a person speaking "stream of consciousness."
Let's again look at this from Session 408:
Seth2 (Session 408): "Your first Seth is independent, and I am independent. (Pause.) Because he is a part of my reality does not mean that he is less an individual. My reality simply includes more, now, within your particular coordinates; and that last is important.
"He is another aspect of me while being himself. (Pause.) In your terms, I am a guide he also follows. He is much more aware of our relationship however than you are of your relationship to him. (Pause; well over one minute long.) Your time is required...
Barrie NOW Comments: It would be like someone saying that Barrie does not write his poems because he gets them, in part, large or small, from his inner voice, his inner self, his guide, etc etc. This would be foolish to say, to separate me as not me or not writing my poems because I get things separate from my ordinary conscious mind. In the same manner, you can say that I don't dream, that no one dreams because these dreams, also, come from an alternative source, other than the waking conscious self.
paul ;
well obviously if the poems come from beyond your cons' mind Barrie then it is not you who has originated them is it , but the inner self as you said . This inner self is your creator + will send you inspiration sometimes but it is sheer arrogance + pollyanna to lay claim to it as your own . Your inner self is not you Barrie , you are a small portion of its reality .
The cons' self creates its own dreams as a by product of being physical but it does not create the inspiration that comes to it , which is from the inner self .
Barrie ;
Quote from: voidypaul
Seth says to dissociate daily , regularly ,
Where does Seth say this? I'd rather see the quote myself than solely rely on your interpretation of it, if that is what it is. Thanks.
paul ;
The quotes are somewhere at the begining of Vol 1 , early sess' i think .
You really need to read the mat' right from the begining Barrie , you are supposed to be someone who has a good knowledge of the Seth material (+ in some respects you do have) so that folks can come to you for advice on sethian concepts , but how many times have i put forward concepts + ideas from Seth that you fail to recognise ? 3/4 times ? get your books out again old bean + let it sink in this time , as you appear not to know what you are talking about sometimes , especially on the topics i have put forward .
peace , paul
Paul,
We just have very, very, very different views on and interpretations of Seth, the Seth material and very different definitions of the concepts involved. You should feel free to believe exactly as you do--as I shall feel free to believe as I do and to disagree with a great deal of what you say. But as they say, that is what makes a horse race. That said, I do find our interactions more like going in circles than getting anywhere new.
For a tiny example that branches out into much larger issues: I believe my inner voice, inner self or whatever anyone wishes to call it--IS me. I don't see the separation as you do. So, I believe any poem I write which includes in large or small part--any inspiration or words or stanzas that come from beyond my conscious mind, so to speak, is still ME writing the poem. Feel free to disagree.
As for me, I believe that I encompass much more than my focal personality. My focal personality's ego has expanded beyond what I originally believed it was or could be before I started reading the material. So, in MY terms--I am my inner voice, and my inner voice is me. And there is much more to my inner voice than me--and more to me than my inner voice.
Now, those statements may be meaningless to you; or wrong; or mistaken--and if only I understood correctly, etc etc.
To me, my statements are profound, deep and true. Yet, I also know, recognize and believe that they are my beliefs—which is all we have to go on here on the physical plane. We believe we know the truth. We believe we understand what absolute truths are or if they exist or not. We never KNOW anything. But rather we speculate and assume that we do--so that we can function on this plane.
You may believe otherwise, which is your right, of course--and you should always trust yourself over me or anyone else. But that doesn't make you right and me wrong; or me right and you wrong--despite whatever our differing beliefs are on those topics and issue. I may often or sometimes believe I'm right and vice versa for you.
So, I offer you this example regarding my poem-writing to demonstrate how and why I find our interactions pretty circular and fruitless. You have your beliefs about and definitions of things and I have mine--and we disagree on fundamental levels--concerning the self, inner voice, Seth2, Seth, their relationship and on and on.
I could go thru your post line by line and say how and why I disagree with this and that; and what I agree with--and you will write back saying how I, Barrie, don't understand and should read more--because, of course, if I did read more and read again--then I'd obviously agree with you--as you offer your interpretations and definitions as truth and fact--because you DO understand correctly—and those who disagree do not--and then this will go on and on.
OR--do you at least realize that what you claim and the definitions and interpretations that you come up with--are actually and solely your opinions and beliefs--and not facts?
In any case, I do recognize that what I say about the Seth material and how I interpret it, and so forth, are my interpretations and beliefs--which others may agree with or not--with my blessings which they don't need--and they may agree with me or not--based on their own interpretations and beliefs.
As for us, I have tried to find common ground--but you seem to think/believe in such a black/white and right/wrong manner -- that our discussions do become circular and even pointless.
In closing, I shall give you just two more examples of the futility and fruitlessness of which I speak:
Paul Writes:
1. S2 is a creator + seeds universes etc . Seth himself is like a newborn kitten in comparison .
2. S2 has never existed in historical terms , but Seth has + in fact has only recently finished with his reinc' cycle + that obviously shows a massive difference/seperation between them
Barrie Responds: I would not describe Seth like a newborn kitten. To ME, that description is absurd. Seth 2 has said of Seth:
Seth II (ESP Class, 10-14-69): "We sent him to you in your terms in some indescribably distant past. He entered your universe in a reality I find difficult to remember. He gave guidance to your kind for eons of your time."
Barrie NOW Comments: 1. Altho Seth2 is much more and much more vast etc than Seth, Seth still has "given guidance to your kind for eons of your time." THIS, Paul, to me, is not like a "newborn kitten."
Now, you can believe that Seth IS like a newborn kitten, but I find the discussion fruitless and circular. I am not very interested simply in what you believe and how correct you believe you are, and certainly not that what you seem to believe is fact.
I was interested in a sharing of beliefs and maybe finding some common ground—BUT your definitions and interpretations are so rigid and different from mine—that that attempt has proven circular and fruitless. For it seems that you take your interpretations as facts. Seth IS like a newborn kitten to you, and therefore, you believe that that is what Seth is. No room for discussion—only agreement with you or being wrong.
2. You, Paul, also write, "Seth has, in fact, has only recently finished with his reincarnational cycle."
Barrie NOW Comments: Now, it is true that Frank Watts lived in the 20th Century—but YOUR concept and understanding of this is simply not mine. As I see it, time is not linear. Time is simultaneous, as you also believe, I'm sure. And so even tho Watts recently lived, the concept of Seth "recently finishing" his reincarnational cycle makes little sense to me. It is not like Seth and his awareness as a nonphysical being just "began" after Watts died, and so Seth is like a new-born kitten.
Seth can still always send forth a part of himself to be physical, while simultaneously being ancient himself.
As Seth2 said, Seth was sent to the human race "in some indescribably distant past... He gave guidance to your kind for eons of your time." This is NOT the description of a personality who just "recently finished...his reincarnational cycle."
Also, as Seth2 said:
Seth2 (Session 419): "Seth as you know him will not be reincarnated, but other portions of our entity will be born in flesh, for we have a part in all worlds and all realities. We are among the most ancient of entities in your terms."
Barrie Comments: So, "other portions" of Seth2, who is "among the most ancient of entities...will be born in flesh." Does THIS mean that Seth2 has not finished his reincarnational cycle yet—and so therefore is not even a newborn kitten like Seth? I ask that rhetorically.
Barrie NOW Concludes: I hope I have given you clear examples of the vast differences between our interpretations. You read things and take them to places that I do not. I very much disagree with most of your conclusions, descriptions and definitions of things. So much so, that our discourse just becomes circular—with your declarations of how you are right and I am wrong—with seemingly no inkling that you are just stating your beliefs and not facts. But it is your right and choice to do so...but all of this makes our discourse both unpleasant and fruitless. Not quite the best combination.
As I said, I can go thru your whole response, line by line—but I believe it will prove as fruitless and circular as always. I don't suggest that you reread the material so that you will eventually agree with me—and see the error of your thinking, and so forth. I trust that you will find your answers in your time, as I will continue to find mine.
I left Seth class to find my own answers and not rely on Seth...and so I guess it may seem obvious that I have no need or desire to rely on you either. Whatever it is that I "know" and understand or don't know and understand—will progress and grow with a continued trust in myself and trying to hear and understand what others believe—so I can either use, discard or adapt whatever parts I find of use or not of use; or interesting alternative views and so forth.
Barrie's reply ;
Paul,
We just have very, very, very different views on and interpretations of Seth, the Seth material and very different definitions of the concepts involved. You should feel free to believe exactly as you do--as I shall feel free to believe as I do and to disagree with a great deal of what you say. But as they say, that is what makes a horse race. That said, I do find our interactions more like going in circles than getting anywhere new.
paul ;
Actually Barrie you need to stop telling me or anyone else that they ''should feel free to believe exactly as they wish--as you shall feel free to believe as you do'' because that is complete bull as far as the material is concerned .
No one , not me or you should have their own beliefs or interpretatiions of the mat' , it is to stand as it is + not be pissed on by you or anyone . And as someone who is supposed to be knoledgeable , you should NOT be encouraging anyone to be happy with their own beliefs + interpretations of the mat' but putting them straight when they have got it wrong . As i have been at pains to do with you .
So now i am going to give you a complete + utter grilling old bean about your own innapropriate + way off missinterpretations + misconceptions of the material , so hold on to your vain ego as you will not be able to procrastinate your way out of this one.
point 1 ;
when i 1st posted you about the void states , you told me that Seth had not ever mentioned such a thing as void , but you were wrong of course + yet you have still posted the same rubbish on this forum 5yrs later you fool, ie ,
Barrie;
For starters...define what YOU mean by the term "void" and let's see if it is or is not found in the Seth material.
We also know that Seth did not use the term "void," and Seth really cared about his word choices.
paul ;
Straighten up Barrie , either you understand that seth mentioned void or you do not , which is it with you ? And y do you feel you have to question me about it all over again when this was supposed to be sorted 5yrs ago ?
Trying to press a few buttons or make me out to be wrong on this site too , very dubious Barrie + entirely ungentlemanly . Rude actually + rather dimwitted .
Point 2 ;
The fairytales you spout about the blinking on + off + into the spacious present + F2 .
I have said several times now that the off 'period' was about the negative interval which is a part of the negative or antimatter plane of the 3 field system in which we have our reality + which in turn is a part of the whole universal system ,
( i wrote about this in the same post about Seth2 being the source of the seth material + before that . Y have you have conveniently not bothered to answer this question ?)
So you told me that i must be reinterpreting seth or expressing my own beliefs + that it was nowhere in the Seth mat' . ie ,
Barrie ;
Barrie NOW Responds: Where do you come up with these things? Its great if you believe them, as you should, but where are they in the Seth material? They are not there. To say that your ideas are supported by the Seth material, I believe, is a total fabrication; just not true.
So let me further explain how this relates to our blinking and flickering in out of physical reality? This is how:
Over and over again each instant, we "blink" out of F1 and focus in the spacious present of F2 and "return" to or refocus on F1.
paul ;
You are absolutely + utterly wrong , yet again .
What is it with you Barrie , is your ego so dominant that you can't admit when you are wrong ? Its no wonder you think so highly of your own wayward interpretations of the Seth mat' , because it feels soooo right to your massive ego .
You obviously did'nt even read the quotes i gave you + i have asked pretty please on many an occasion but no Barrie has his own intepretations + barie is an old class member so Barrie must be right , yes a right prat actually . I think you left the class sessions because you are an arrogant fool mate , find your own answers my ass , more like scared of any truths that Seth might have pointed out to you .
So to repeat myself yet again,
we'll go back to the blinking (pulsating) off + on, into + out of the negative field (or antimatter) which is a part of the 3- field system that makes up our small part of this universal system of manifestation , + which you say is a figment of my imagination , + how wrong i am + misguided , well now i have gotten to the point of,
off with the kiddy gloves + fck you for being so rude + stupid enough not to have read the quotes i gave you .
So here it is again Barrie , lets see if this time you will actually read the quotes + understand them properly this time + then see if you have the nuts to admit that you are wrong + retract your devisive + unfounded comments to me .
Vol 2 , sess' 61 , pg 151
''...... the fact is , mat' on your field is composed of constant energy pulsations ; + while to you the appearance is one of permanence to a fair degree ..............etc
'' therefore there is what i call the neg' interval , when one pulsation has vanished from your plane + another is about to take its place .........etc
'' You do not percieve the neg' interval ''
'' Our neg' interevals do indeed have something to do with antimatter , i prefer to call it neg' matter .''
+ vol 3 , sess 109 , pg 156
'' Both the dream univ' + the univ' of neg' mat' then are by-products of the phys' univ' , .........etc ''
''........in this manner your phys' univ' , dream univ' + univ' of neg' mat' have come together , while retaining their boundaries as a more or less closed sys' .''
paul ;
I am right about this (+ other subjects you have rubbished me for) , not because i believe i am right or that it is my interpretation or beliefs , as you so arrogantly put it , but because i have read it + am repeating more or less exactly what i have read in the Seth mat' , you fool .
So its about time you read it , + give credit where credit is due , unless of course you are'nt big enough , + quite honestly if you are'nt then if anyone else takes the time to look up these quotes they will also see that you have embarrassed yourself (yet again) + should not be taken seriously when you make your own uneducated guesses or put forward your own assumptions, interpretations or beliefs as to what Seth has or has not said .
Except of course when you quote him directly .
Barrie ;
As for me, I believe that I encompass much more than my focal personality. My focal personality's ego has expanded beyond what I originally believed it was or could be before I started reading the material. So, in MY terms--I am my inner voice, and my inner voice is me. And there is much more to my inner voice than me--and more to me than my inner voice.
paul ;
absolute bull' , you mean your ego has expanded . Your inner inspirational voice comes from the inner self + it is patently obvious that you are not an inner self Barrie , just an over inflated egotistical self . It is Not because you know the Seth mat' but because of the fallacious interpretations you make up from it .
Barrie ;
To me, my statements are profound, deep and true. Yet, I also know, recognize and believe that they are my beliefs—which is all we have to go on here on the physical plane. We believe we know the truth. We believe we understand what absolute truths are or if they exist or not. We never KNOW anything. But rather we speculate and assume that we do--so that we can function on this plane.
paul ;
no you ass, beliefs are NOT all we have to go on , we have the Seth mat' which you have brutalised by your interpretations + then delude yourself into believing are actually profound, deep and true meanings but are merely your own weak brew of assumptions about the Seth mat' because you have not read it properly nor understood what he said .
And do try + stop projecting or passing on your own misinterpretations to others .
I would suggest ,again, that you re-read the books b4 you make any further
embarrassing cock-ups .
Barrie ;
You may believe otherwise, which is your right, of course--and you should always trust yourself over me or anyone else. But that doesn't make you right and me wrong; or me right and you wrong--despite whatever our differing beliefs are on those topics and issue. I may often or sometimes believe I'm right and vice versa for you.
paul ;
fck off with your nambypamby i believe this + you believe that + this is my interpretation + that is yours bull .
I talk only of the Seth mat' , + your superfluous beliefs about the pulsations are an example of how wayward you are + why i keep telling you to go back to the books rather than rely on your own feeble ego + its so v wrong assumptions/interpretations + beliefs + rather childlike suppositions of the Seth material .
And you teach this shyte to other people + pretend to be knowledgable ! You are not even half right about the pulsations , so that makes you as much a pretender as Frank who you villify for his own obvious self translations of the material , look in the mirror Barrie .
You are as bad as Frank the pretender whom you like to divest of his sethian delusions , you should divest yourself of your own delusions too Barrie or remain a hypocrite , as you choose .
Barrie ;
So, I offer you this example regarding my poem-writing to demonstrate how and why I find our interactions pretty circular and fruitless. You have your beliefs about and definitions of things and I have mine--and we disagree on fundamental levels--concerning the self, inner voice, Seth2, Seth, their relationship and on and on.
paul ;
yeah sure Barrie , + when i find the quotes about inspiration i will come back + stuff them down your throat also , or apologise (which you seem incapable of) .
Barrie ;
OR--do you at least realize that what you claim and the definitions and interpretations that you come up with--are actually and solely your opinions and beliefs--and not facts?
In any case, I do recognize that what I say about the Seth material and how I interpret it, and so forth, are my interpretations and beliefs--which others may agree with or not--with my blessings which they don't need--and they may agree with me or not--based on their own interpretations and beliefs.
paul ;
the freakin whole point is that you are NOT meant to be reinterpreting the Seth mat' Barrie , but putting it across as it is , not how you think it should be . How do you think it was that Christianity , Buddhism etc got so fckd up , except by nincompoops like you putting their own crappy interpretations on the material .
Y do you think that Seth only came thru Jane , to stop asses like you + Frank from teaching a perverted form of Seth .
Barrie ;
As for us, I have tried to find common ground--but you seem to think/believe in such a black/white and right/wrong manner -- that our discussions do become circular and even pointless.
paul ;
no, actually you merely prevaricate + procrastinate + like to believe what you imagine about the seth mat' is true , + won't even admit when you are wrong .
+ i give information that can be backed up by actual + real Seth mat' .
Barrie ;
In closing, I shall give you just two more examples of the futility and fruitlessness of which I speak:
Paul Writes:
1. S2 is a creator + seeds universes etc . Seth himself is like a newborn kitten in comparison .
2. S2 has never existed in historical terms , but Seth has + in fact has only recently finished with his reinc' cycle + that obviously shows a massive difference/seperation between them
Barrie Responds: I would not describe Seth like a newborn kitten. To ME, that description is absurd.
Barrie NOW Comments: 1. Altho Seth2 is much more and much more vast etc than Seth, Seth still has "given guidance to your kind for eons of your time." THIS, Paul, to me, is not like a "newborn kitten."
Now, you can believe that Seth IS like a newborn kitten, but I find the discussion fruitless and circular.
For it seems that you take your interpretations as facts. Seth IS like a newborn kitten to you, and therefore, you believe that that is what Seth is. No room for discussion—only agreement with you or being wrong.
paul ;
fckg read things properly + stop putting your own feeble interpretations + distortions on what is said . I quite clearly stated that Seth is like a kitten in comparison to S2 + not as you have projected on to it , in comparisson to me or anyone else (except the living Christ of course) .
Our discussions are circular + fruitless because you make of them something they are not, nor were ever meant to be . STOP projecting onto or overlaying my words with some other meanings out of your own imagination , so that you can accuse me of something that i have not said , just stop fckg doing that you dimwit .
Barrie ;
I am not very interested simply in what you believe and how correct you believe you are, and certainly not that what you seem to believe is fact.
I was interested in a sharing of beliefs and maybe finding some common ground—BUT your definitions and interpretations are so rigid and different from mine—that that attempt has proven circular and fruitless.
paul ;
i am not interested in sharing beliefs or interpretations Barrie , just the Seth material as it is , (even if you find this to be a rigidity in me) , + how it relates to any other material + NOT reinterpreting it as you love to do , which is sheer arrogance + totally misleading to whomever you talk to .
Barrie ;
You, Paul, also write, "Seth has, in fact, has only recently finished with his reincarnational cycle."
Barrie NOW Comments: Now, it is true that Frank Watts lived in the 20th Century—but YOUR concept and understanding of this is simply not mine. As I see it, time is not linear. Time is simultaneous, as you also believe, I'm sure. And so even tho Watts recently lived, the concept of Seth "recently finishing" his reincarnational cycle makes little sense to me. It is not like Seth and his awareness as a nonphysical being just "began" after Watts died, and so Seth is like a new-born kitten.
Seth can still always send forth a part of himself to be physical, while simultaneously being ancient himself.
paul ;
again you show a feeble understanding of the seth mat' Barrie.
There are souls who spend thousands of yrs coming + going b4 they finish with their reinc'cycle . Y would Seth talk of living souls who were born in Egyptian times + even 1000's of yrs b4 that in the Atlantean culture + even b4 that as one of the speakers Seth mentioned ? Which were freakin eons ago you numpty .
And anyway , parts of an entity split off from the main branch as Jane did from seth so there are always parts of an entity that will go on experiencing phys' reality , whilst other parts finish off their cycles + move on to other levels .
Seth himself has obviously only just finished with his incar' cycle or y would he + S2 say so , do you think that even they are lying to you or have misinterpreted something themselves ? Obviously you think you know better than even them .
One does not finish one's cycle several times Barrie but only once + Seths was just recently + then of course he collected all of his knowledge together + became a whole or inner self himself, + then began his teachings . As jane as Rupbert or Robert as Joseph will do .
Y is this so difficult for you to understand + accept ?
Y DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATIONS OVER + ABOVE WHAT BOTH SETH + S2 HAVE SAID ? That is arrogant + entirely wrong of you .
Barrie ;
As Seth2 said, Seth was sent to the human race "in some indescribably distant past... He gave guidance to your kind for eons of your time." This is NOT the description of a personality who just "recently finished...his reincarnational cycle."
paul ;
why not Barrie ? I have just explained about different parts of an entity spliting off from the main branch + you have both Seths + S2's comments , or is it just because you don't think it could be possible for seth to have only just finished his cycle , or you just can't believe it even when seth + S2 have said so ? Y do you like to cherry pick what you will or won't believe of seths teachings?
WHAT KNOWLEDGE DO YOU HAVE THAT PROVES DIFFERENTLY Mr Brainiac ?
Barrie ;
Seth2 (Session 419): "Seth as you know him will not be reincarnated, but other portions of our entity will be born in flesh, for we have a part in all worlds and all realities. We are among the most ancient of entities in your terms."
Barrie Comments: So, "other portions" of Seth2, who is "among the most ancient of entities...will be born in flesh." Does THIS mean that Seth2 has not finished his reincarnational cycle yet—and so therefore is not even a newborn kitten like Seth? I ask that rhetorically.
paul ;
Rhetorically my ass .
S2 is not + has never been a phys' being so how the fck can he have a reinc' cycle ? He simply says that other 'portions' of his entity will be born in flesh .
As Jane split off from Seth so other portions will have split off from either Seth or Jane or Rob + will continue on with their own cycles , or the entity will send out a brand new seth personality , but all of which are still from the same origional S2 entity as Seth + Jane + Robert are all from the same origonal Seth that was phys' born eons ago + even if that origional Seth has moved on to other dimensions of existence , as our Seth has only just recently done so , there will allways be portions in existence or brand new fragments sent out by the entity ,,, to follow their own incarnational cycles .
Barrie ;
Barrie NOW Concludes: I hope I have given you clear examples of the vast differences between our interpretations. You read things and take them to places that I do not. I very much disagree with most of your conclusions, descriptions and definitions of things. So much so, that our discourse just becomes circular—with your declarations of how you are right and I am wrong—with seemingly no inkling that you are just stating your beliefs and not facts. But it is your right and choice to do so...but all of this makes our discourse both unpleasant and fruitless. Not quite the best combination.
paul ;
no i do not interpret or have my own beliefs about the seth mat' i only spk of what i have read + digested of the Seth mat'.
It is you who have placed your own interpretations + beliefs on seths mat' Barrie + then you want to argue from your own misguided interpretations .
Like the void + the pulsating , + you can add to this ever growing list the undifferentiated levels (which are identical to my initial void states) + are things which you do not believe are in the seth mat' , but just another figment of my imagination , you dingbat .
Barrie ;
As I said, I can go thru your whole response, line by line—but I believe it will prove as fruitless and circular as always. I don't suggest that you reread the material so that you will eventually agree with me—and see the error of your thinking, and so forth. I trust that you will find your answers in your time, as I will continue to find mine.
paul ;
no Barrie it is your reading of the seth mat that is fruitless/ falacious + circular because you wont listen to anyone who tries nicely (as i have done) to put you right on such matters .
Your arrogant little ego wont let you grow Barrie + in fact you are blinded by it . Our debates are only circular because you have never read any of the quotes i have given you + insist that your own intepretations are correct , you wally .
Barrie ;
I left Seth class to find my own answers and not rely on Seth...and so I guess it may seem obvious that I have no need or desire to rely on you either. Whatever it is that I "know" and understand or don't know and understand—will progress and grow with a continued trust in myself and trying to hear and understand what others believe—so I can either use, discard or adapt whatever parts I find of use or not of use; or interesting alternative views and so forth.
paul ;
yes you were as much an arrogant fool then as you are now . Not rely on Seth ? How foolish you are , as your own interpretations are so much more pathetic + innapropriate than Seths .
So here's the list of your faux pas barrie .
1. the void , which you eventually had to concede to me , after a very long time
but still used recently to try + make me out to be wrong again.
2. undifferentiated field, which again you said was not in the Seth material , even when i gave you quotes + you have also refused to admit the obvious similarities to my 1st void state .
3. this pulsating on + off , etc , which for some bizzare reason you still seem to think is into the sp' pr' + F2 , even after quotes i have given you .
Also the negative field or antimatter + the 3 field system , which are to do with the pulsations + again you have told me that i am making this up , you twat .
4. Dissociation . same as above , go look it up you fool .
5. You kept tellig me that i said that cons' did not exist b4 the void + this is a fabrication of yours also , show me where i said this + i will concede the
point , you eventually had to agree but without any comment on your wrong + misleading assumptions about me , v ungraceful Barrie + v immature .
6. I have never said that non-being + void are the same thing , another of your dismal missunderstandings again .
You have no understanding of non-being whatsoever .
7. that Christ was + is a much more advanced being than Seth . This outraged you , + you would'nt believe it untill you eventually read the session i sent you .
So after all these occaisions you have been wrong about me , you still wont trust my opinions + still continue to insist that i missinterpret or have misguided beliefs + yet it has been proven to be you who are mistaken in their views + interpretations,
you numbskull .
Barrie ;
NON-BEING is not a state of nothingness. It is a state in which probabilities exist, etc. but can't be physicalized. This would be like the creation of the quantum state, to see it at that level and to use quantum those terms of today. The place in which ATI put the "quantum state," this void, is not the heart of physical reality. EVERYTHING is composed of the quantum state as everything is ATI as well. Likewise, the sperm entering the egg, is not the heart of a human being that we all must get back to or long for.
paul ;
Whaaat . I don't even know where to begin as to how senseless + arbitrary this mish mash is , you said above that probabilities exist, etc. but can't be physicalized , noooo Barrie it is expressed NOT physicalized + there is awhole world of difference in these two wordings .
Non-being + quantum states , are you serious ? Quantum states are a piss in the snow as far as ATI + nonbeing is concerned , + how do you put indiv' cons' + quantum states together then Barrie + where is this in the Seth mat'?
You may be close when you say these quantum states have something to do with void (+ energy) but what has that got to do with non-being ?
You are the great detractor + provaricator , you have some wild imagination mate . + Definately not v sethian .
You have made a fool of yourself Barrie simply because you have not bothered
to read the quotes i have given you , how dippy is that + how rude to keep arguing a point when you have not even the barest foundations of knowledge , even when they are offered you as direct quotes from Seth .
You are a hypocrite because you argue (rather frantically) with Frank the pretender that he distorts the Seth mat' when that is exactly what you have been doing yourself with me , you dipstick .
so up yours too mr i think this is so fruitless + circular .
If you only deign to respond to one topic i listed , make it the blinking on + off , as i'd like to know if you have gotten up to date on that one in particular , oh , + no don't thank me for putting you right , just pretend you knew all along , mate .
peace (or whatever it is you get from this) , paul
Paul, What I get from reading your posts is such an incredible unpleasantness, anger and insulting rudeness--that makes even trying to write back to you a chore of maneuvering thru manure. For arguments sake, let's say every single thing you write is true--and all my responses are wrong and mistaken--it still would not call for one iota of your judgmental name-calling, nastiness and unpleasantness.
I've tried to work around it, but it is so offensive as to be detrimental to the joy of the moment or the joy of interaction. Why would I want to wade thru such bad, negative vibes and unfriendliness? My answer is that I would not. It is just too hostile and unpleasant. I have tried to forge some sort of path of fun thru your vibes and arrogance (as I see it), but I have not succeeded. As I said, even if you were 100 percent correct, your attitude is so shitty and uncongenial—that I'd rather remain ignorant than learn from such a person who communicates as you do. That said, I do disagree with almost all you say—so as to who is correct or not with our interpretations is up for question—something I can see but you cannot. Your world is so black and white you can't even see that you make interpretations.
All in all, your responses make it not worthwhile trying to open myself up to you. You, Paul, cannot just accept people either having different interpretations or having different understandable points of view. For you, it's your way or the highway. You don't seem to have the capacity to understand how other people think—and not simply see their thinking as either agreeing with you (right and smart) or disagreeing with you (wrong and stupid). There are reasonable and rational places for disagreement and different interpretations that you just cannot see or accept. Your black and white world allows for no gray, and I enjoy the gray.
Paul, I see this comment of yours a good example and indicadive of your way of thinking that I have been describing:
Paul Writes: no i do not interpret or have my own beliefs about the seth mat' i only spk of what i have read + digested of the Seth mat'.
Barrie NOW Responds: The fact that you believe that you do not interpret the Seth material or have your own beliefs about the Seth material—leaves me both speechless, metaphorically speaking, and is precisely exactly what I have been saying about the problems of communicating with you. Now, you are free to continue believing that you don't interpret and don't have beliefs about the material—but I proudly do—for that is what human beings do—we interpret things and believe things.
I don't expect you any longer to understand what I'm saying—for your belief system is so vastly different than mine—but I say it for my own sake—to know that I have said it in our communication.
Besides the "fact" that all humans interpret and have beliefs about whatever they read, meet or do—speaking specifically about the Seth material--what I've learned from Seth class is precisely to interpret the material, add to it, speculate and assume about it, carry it further that it is, listen to and trust myself, and on and on—all that you seem to loathe—is what I encourage people to do. So, what further name-calling do you have to say now—with what list of errors and mistakes in my thinking? Thankfully, my lesson from Seth was/is to trust myself over anyone—including Seth, and certainly including such a person as you.
Paul Writes: "Actually Barrie you need to stop telling me or anyone else that they ''should feel free to believe exactly as they wish--as you shall feel free to believe as you do'' because that is complete bull as far as the material is concerned .
"No one , not me or you should have their own beliefs or interpretatiions of the mat' , it is to stand as it is + not be pissed on by you or anyone . And as someone who is supposed to be knoledgeable , you should NOT be encouraging anyone to be happy with their own beliefs + interpretations of the mat' but putting them straight when they have got it wrong."
Barrie Responds: Thank you, Paul, for so clearly delineating how far apart our beliefs and feelings are. I couldn't disagree with you more strongly than if you told me turtles grow from spaghetti and melt like ice cream at zero degrees. You have really opened up my eyes as to what is in your mind and heart and realize how deeply futile our discussions are. I could not have said my thoughts about you any more clear that you just did above. Are you sure you are not joking?
Paul Writes:If you only deign to respond to one topic i listed , make it the blinking on + off , as i'd like to know if you have gotten up to date on that one in particular , oh , + no don't thank me for putting you right , just pretend you knew all along , mate .
Barrie Responds: I have tried to respond to you on many points, but your responses back are so intolerant, rude and filled with name-calling—besides not seeing that you have beleifs and interpretations too—that it is fruitless to communicate with you...as I'm sure this communication will also prove. I responded and Seth and Seth2 just as an example—and your response back just proves how fruitless it is to try to have an intelligent discourse with you—and how rude and unpleasant you are.
I was once a skeptic board—for months and months--the whole board consisted of skeptics who believed in nothing nonphysical or psychic at all—we had fundamental differences on the nature of reality from A-Z – I was the only "believer" as they called me--and yet I was able to have civil discourse of disagreement with them, a whole BOARDFUL of them – and none were near as unpleasant, nasty, intolerant and narrow-minded in their disagreements as you are.
Let me give you examples just in your last responses to me—that are filled with such unpleasant, offensive and intolerant namecallling:
1. no, actually you merely prevaricate + procrastinate + like to believe what you imagine about the seth mat' is true , + won't even admit when you are wrong .
2. fckg read things properly + stop putting your own feeble interpretations + distortions on what is said .
3. STOP projecting onto or overlaying my words with some other meanings out of your own imagination...just stop fckg doing that you dimwit .
4. i am not interested in sharing beliefs or interpretations Barrie , just the Seth material as it is...NOT reinterpreting it as you love to do , which is sheer arrogance + totally misleading to whomever you talk to .
5. again you show a feeble understanding of the seth mat' Barrie.
6. .... Which were freakin eons ago you numpty .
7. Y DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATIONS OVER + ABOVE WHAT BOTH SETH + S2 HAVE SAID ? That is arrogant + entirely wrong of you .
8. WHAT KNOWLEDGE DO YOU HAVE THAT PROVES DIFFERENTLY Mr Brainiac ?
9. Rhetorically my ass .
10. It is you who have placed your own interpretations + beliefs on seths mat' Barrie + then you want to argue from your own misguided interpretations .
11. Like the void + the pulsating , + you can add to this ever growing list...(of) things which you do not believe are in the seth mat' ...you dingbat .
12. no Barrie it is your reading of the seth mat that is fruitless/ falacious + circular because you wont listen to anyone who tries nicely (as i have done) to put you right on such matters .
13. Your arrogant little ego wont let you grow Barrie + in fact you are blinded by it.
14. Our debates are only circular because you have never read any of the quotes i have given you + insist that your own intepretations are correct , you wally .
15. yes you were as much an arrogant fool then as you are now .
16. Not rely on Seth ? How foolish you are , as your own interpretations are so much more pathetic + innapropriate than Seths .
17. So here's the list of your faux pas barrie .
18. you eventually had to agree but without any comment on your wrong + misleading assumptions about me , v ungraceful Barrie + v immature .
19. So after all these occaisions you have been wrong about me , you still wont trust my opinions... you numbskull .
20. You are the great detractor + prevaricator...Definately not v sethian .
21. You have made a fool of yourself Barrie simply because you have not bothered
to read the quotes i have given you , how dippy is that + how rude to keep arguing a point when you have not even the barest foundations of knowledge , even when they are offered you as direct quotes from Seth .
22. You are a hypocrite because you argue (rather frantically) with Frank the pretender that he distorts the Seth mat' when that is exactly what you have been doing yourself with me , you dipstick .
23. so up yours too mr i think this is so fruitless + circular .
24. So now i am going to give you a complete + utter grilling old bean about your own innapropriate + way off missinterpretations + misconceptions of the material , so hold on to your vain ego as you will not be able to procrastinate your way out of this one.
25. when i 1st posted you about the void states , you told me that Seth had not ever mentioned such a thing as void , but you were wrong of course... you fool (by the way, Paul, your interpretation of what I actually said is wrong—I said to see if your meaning for the word "void" was found in the material—and not the word "void" found in the material).
26. What is it with you Barrie , is your ego so dominant that you can't admit when you are wrong ? Its no wonder you think so highly of your own wayward interpretations of the Seth mat' , because it feels soooo right to your massive ego .
27. Barrie has his own intepretations + barie is an old class member so Barrie must be right , yes a right prat actually .
28. I think you left the class sessions because you are an arrogant fool mate , find your own answers my ass , more like scared of any truths that Seth might have pointed out to you .
29. off with the kiddy gloves + fck you for being so rude + stupid enough not to have read the quotes i gave you .
30. I am right about this (+ other subjects you have rubbished me for) , not because i believe i am right or that it is my interpretation or beliefs , as you so arrogantly put it , but because i have read it + am repeating more or less exactly what i have read in the Seth mat' , you fool .
31. absolute bull' , you mean your ego has expanded . Your inner inspirational voice comes from the inner self + it is patently obvious that you are not an inner self Barrie , just an over inflated egotistical self .
32. no you ass, beliefs are NOT all we have to go on , we have the Seth mat' which you have brutalised by your interpretations + then delude yourself into believing are actually profound, deep and true meanings but are merely your own weak brew of assumptions about the Seth mat' because you have not read it properly nor understood what he said .
33. fck off with your nambypamby i believe this + you believe that + this is my interpretation + that is yours bull .
34. I talk only of the Seth mat' , + your superfluous beliefs about the pulsations are an example of how wayward you are + why i keep telling you to go back to the books rather than rely on your own feeble ego + its so v wrong assumptions/interpretations + beliefs + rather childlike suppositions of the Seth material .
35. And you teach this shyte to other people + pretend to be knowledgable !
36. You are not even half right about the pulsations , so that makes you as much a pretender as Frank who you villify for his own obvious self translations of the material , look in the mirror Barrie .
37. You are as bad as Frank the pretender whom you like to divest of his sethian delusions , you should divest yourself of your own delusions too Barrie or remain a hypocrite , as you choose .
38. the freakin whole point is that you are NOT meant to be reinterpreting the Seth mat' Barrie , but putting it across as it is , not how you think it should be . How do you think it was that Christianity , Buddhism etc got so fckd up , except by nincompoops like you putting their own crappy interpretations on the material .
39. Y do you think that Seth only came thru Jane , to stop asses like you + Frank from teaching a perverted form of Seth .
Barrie NOW Comments: I don't expect you to see what I am saying to you...you have your own beliefs which filter things in the way you need to filter them. But I have tried to be as objective as I could to show you what you do and sound like....
Barrie
Paul, you could not be more wrong concerning Seth and Seth class and the Seth material. Seth most certainly wanted us to find our own answers and not rely on him. One of his major messages was precisely that—to look within and not to him for the answers.
Paul Had Written: "Actually Barrie you need to stop telling me or anyone else that they ''should feel free to believe exactly as they wish--as you shall feel free to believe as you do'' because that is complete bull as far as the material is concerned .
"No one , not me or you should have their own beliefs or interpretatiions of the mat' , it is to stand as it is + not be pissed on by you or anyone . And as someone who is supposed to be knoledgeable , you should NOT be encouraging anyone to be happy with their own beliefs + interpretations of the mat' but putting them straight when they have got it wrong....
"Y DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATIONS OVER + ABOVE WHAT BOTH SETH + S2 HAVE SAID ? That is arrogant + entirely wrong of you...
...the freakin whole point is that you are NOT meant to be reinterpreting the Seth mat' Barrie , but putting it across as it is , not how you think it should be."
. I think you left the class sessions because you are an arrogant fool mate , find your own answers my ass , more like scared of any truths that Seth might have
Barrie NOW Responds: You are trying to create a gospel and a dogma concerning Seth's words which is precisely what Seth and Jane wished to avoid. Seth invited people to disagree with him and interpret the material as they wished and felt. Seth wanted people to look within for their own answers, and not look to him for answers. He has said that no one needs a Seth, all you need is yourself. And, by the way, everything is about beliefs on the physical plane—that is what creates the reality we see and what filters all of what we think we understand.
Here is some of Seth telling people in class, along with me, to find the answers within you and not to look to him for answers:
Seth (ESP Class, 5-30-72): "Now, I would like you to sense the energy that resides within your self and realize that the energy within you has the answers to your questions, and if you accept the answers, further questions will form. But if the answers are given to you out of hand, they will not necessarily lead you to new questions but to dead ends. And I do not believe in leading people to dead ends. Open doorways come when you look through yourselves, into yourselves, and through those selves to the selves beneath. And each answer leads you to a new question. And each question leads you to a new reality, but if you can forsake the question, you will get there quicker...
"I return you to the one authority always, and by my message I prevent you from using me as the authority, the one who knows all the answers. I return you to the authority that is the self, the self that is within each of you. And my role is to teach you to follow the inner roads that lead to the self, for no man's answers are the same as any others. And you must find your own inroads."
-----------------------
Seth (ESP Class, 10-17-72): "Is there a God or is there a being or a source behind all reality? You have the answers as well as anyone else does. You are as alive and aware as anyone else and the secrets of your being are also the secrets of being. You must look within yourself, then, for in the last analysis the beginning and the source of creativity in being resides in each individual consciousness. In the same way that each tree contains its own seed, so it is the seed of your own knowing that you must look for such answers. It is only because you tell yourself that you do not know, that the answers seem unavailable."
Seth (ESP Class, 11-7-72): Student Asks: "Seth, are the laws of nature a group of telepathic...")
Seth Answers: Now, we are involved in beliefs. You believe that I have the answers and you do not. You have the answers. They are within you.
You believe – this (pointing toward Cindy), the one with the glasses on the floor – that for a few moments something, some invisible world is made visible, and as our friend said, physical. Yet you are invisible, made physical and you speak far more often than I do – you are as ghostly as I.
You project upon me the knowledge that you yourselves possess. It is yours. Realize that it is. And that is my answer to you."
------------------------
Seth (ESP Class, 12-12-72): "And your quandary, in a nutshell, is in your question – in your tendency to look to someone like me or to others for your own answers. And so, to give those answers to you is no help to you and simply reinforces something that is not working for your benefit. And a good teacher never reinforces that kind of belief.
"You do not need, in Ruburt's terms, to take acid. You do not need to find the answers from acid or from me – even when I am acidy.
"The answers are within yourself – you simply have not believed it. You have an ego because you are conscious. The ego is a responsive part of yourself. It is not a stupid relative to be shunted out of the way. And yet you look at it constantly and you say, "You stupid thing, you know nothing – out you go! Let my pure unconscious well up and give me the answers."
"And so your life operates according to your beliefs. And since you believe you do not have the answers, it does not seriously occur to you to listen to yourself. You listen to your animus or your anima or your shadow. But try listening to the self that you are in all your remarkable unity. And then the answers are and they are a part of you.
"And what I said to him applies to all of you – and, for heaven's sake, do not look so serious."
-----------------------------------------
Seth (ESP Class, 3-6-73): "And I know that you know that you have access to any energy that you require and that the answers are within you!"
Seth (ESP Class, 2-13-73): "You have been told for so long that the answers are beyond you that many of you still refuse to realize that you have the answers. The questions that you ask have, couched within themselves, their own answers. That is why you ask the questions. Creation will always come from within and from that portion of All That Is that is within you."
Seth (ESP Class, 4-17-73): "As I told you before, in a manner of speaking, you are given the gifts of the gods. Your beliefs become reality. What you believe is and becomes real in your experience. There are no other answers. There is no area in your life to which this does not apply."
Seth (ESP Class, 4-24-73): "The answers are within you, as you all know and as I have said. But the answers cannot be spoken. Each of your questions are different. Each of your realities are different. So remember that basically answers cannot be put into words."
Seth (ESP Class, 5-1-73): "The Speakers speak in many ways – through cobwebs and flowers and toes! They speak through you. And when you are led beyond words, and when you understand thoroughly what I am trying to tell you, you will look inward to yourself with as much attention as you are giving me now, and you will find in that direction new questions that are your own stepping stones to other answers."
"And they are all diagrams that you make for yourself – frameworks through which you interpret your experience.
"For I tell you again (loudly and emphatically), that if you listened to yourselves with as much attention as you grant to me, then within yourselves would you sense and feel that energy that is your own and know that your own existence is the answer to your questions!"
---------------------------------
Seth (ESP Class, 5-22-73): "All I can tell you, and I say it again and again, is that you each have your own consciousness and reality, and that is your path to all the answers that you seek, for you form your own questions as a tree forms its own leaves. And so certain kinds of questions will always lead you to certain kinds of leaves. And with that thought and realization – I hope, on your part, realization – I bid you good evening. But that portion of you that I have reached – that you have reached within yourselves – I hope will waken while you sleep. And if so, then follow it to yourselves and to the heart of your own being."
Seth (ESP Class, 6-12-73): "When you trust the vitality of your entire being, and the energy and the knowledge within yourself, then the way for you personally becomes apparent. If you truly believe that you could go to others for answers and that those answers were pertinent, you would not be here. You are here because you know that I will direct you back to yourself and to your own energy. So when I direct you back to yourself, do not brood and frown! It is what you want, and what you need, and what you have come for, and what you will find. The self that you know, that will be and is being revealed to you, and to each of you – not through dogma and not through rules, but through direct acquaintanceship with your own reality."
--------------------------------
Seth (ESP Class, 6-26-73): Your reality belongs to you. It is your right. It is one reality that you carry with you and create through the miraculous energy that is your self. Be your own interpreter. Interpret your reality as you wish. Do not be copy cats!! Do not try to make your reality like someone else's.
Seth (ESP Class, 7-31-73): "I have said and Ruburt has said, that you are gods couched in creaturehood. Couched – couched – supported. You are not gods dangling in creaturehood, you are not gods abandoned in creaturehood, you are gods couched in creaturehood.
"Many of your questions are beyond answers in the terms in which you ask them. But try forming questions for yourself in other than, in other than verbal terms. Now, you can do this. It will be quite an exercise for many of you but your feelings alone will form questions before you translate them into words. And left alone those feelings, those feeling questions will provide their own answers, and you will understand the answers at that level and later, and later, you may be able to verbalize them to some extent to make you happy!
Seth (ESP Class, 8-7-73): "When the book is out, and you can do the exercises for yourself that are within it, you should be able to find the answers. But it is also quite possible that you will find the answers before that time, without even needing the exercises. Tell yourself, for one thing, that you will know the answer, instead of that you cannot understand. Tell yourself that you can understand.
Seth (ESP Class, 9-4-73): "You find that your own beliefs seem very righteous and virtuous and good. And you act as you heard, because you are good and the other fellow is wrong. But he acts because he believes he is right and you are wrong. As long as you think in terms of black and white that will always be the case, and you will not see individual people. You will not react to the glorious integrity of any person, but to the ideas that you think the person stands for. You will look at a person and decide whether or not he agrees with your interpretation of reality. And so, the glorious reality of individuals will be lost in what you think of as your wisdom.
Seth (9-11-73): Again, I would tell you to ask yourself, and to accept whatever answer you get, for only in that way can you begin to trust your own integrity and your own answers.
Seth (9-18-73): Seth (ESP Class, 9-18-73): There is no question that you can ask to which you do not have an answer. Now if you believe that, each of you, then the answers to your own questions will be given to each of you. But you must believe that the answers are there, and that you can indeed receive them.
Seth (ESP Class, 9-25-73): "But when all your questions of truth are done, feel the vitality of your own being and know its source, and following its source will lead you to questions that you have not as yet the audacity or knowledge to ask. And those questions themselves, in your terms, are like magic carpets that sweep you in any moment into new answers and, of course, there is always someone like me to take the carpet out from under you. And you want that so that you can go ahead again and so that you are not satisfied with the old answers that have been given you, for they are tales. But so that you learn to follow the magic within yourselves to the answers that are there.
"Within your reality there are searches. The answers cannot be given in simple declarative sentences. And yet intuitively and creatively you can sense them, and in the dream state and in other states you can feel those answers, and they are more important than any sentence. You are the verbs. You are the realities. You are the truths. This does not mean that there are not other truths and other realities, but it does mean that you can trust yourselves and follow yourselves to what Ruburt calls the source selves in Aspects."
----------------------------
Seth (ESP Class, 9-25-73): "I bid you good evening. And realize that this class is but a pulpit that you are all using, and so each of you will have to interpret what I am saying in your own way...
"You are the verbs. You are the realities. You are the truths. This does not mean that there are not other truths and other realities, but it does mean that you can trust yourselves and follow yourselves to what Ruburt calls the source selves in Aspects...
"And again, if you understood what I meant – if you clearly for one second understood, and I hope you will – then you would follow the vitality of these sounds into your self and let them act as a springboard into the reality of yourselves that you know instinctively, as a squirrel knows its fine footing."
-----------------------------------
Seth (ESP Class, 11-13-73): "What you want is a new catechism – a new catechism with the answers neatly stated, and the questions, of course, neatly stated. And when you come here and the answers are given to you, and I say, "Yes, you have this belief because of such and such," and "Historically it appears in such and such a condition," and some part of you still wants the authority outside of yourself to give you the answers, and therefore deny you the glory of your own experience. How dull that would be, and what zest it would take from your mental reality!
"If you really thought that all of the answers were here, and that I would give them to you, or could, you would probably all die tomorrow!
"In this reality, when will you learn that the answers and the questions are within yourself, and that the chase is within yourself, and the zest. And what kind of a teacher would I be if I gave you children's answers to children's questions? And that does not mean that I am putting children down.
I am a stimuli. I am a Pied Piper. I lead you on your own merry chase. I lead you into the fascination and excitement of your own existence, and so I do not fall into your pitfalls, nor do you want me to...
I am your own Pied Piper. I am the part of you that goes beyond yourself – the part of you that is not fooled by the questions that you ask yourself. I am your selves in other dimensions and also hidden within this one. You are selves that I have known, your own selves, and those selves demand to ask their own questions and find their own answers and would not stand, despite their moments of weakness, for the answers. For you understand, each of you, that your questions are stepping stones, and that answers are stepping stones, hidden one within the other, and that you are your own questions and your own answers. And you are here because you understand the vitality of your own being and because you accept it, and because you would not have anyone, including me, put you down.
---------------------------------
Seth (ESP Class, 12-18-73): Excellence means that you take advantage of your abilities and do not deny them, and that you expect things of yourself and do not look upon others for their answers; that you do not dribble away your energy. It means that you know your own footing and do not lean upon another and do not accept shifting grounds, but admit your own integrity.
-----------------------------------------
Barrie Comments: This is what I speak of when I speak of having an expanded ego:
Seth (2-6-73 ESP Class): "But, while you think that the ego is a step-child of the self--while you think of it as an outsider who must be swept aside so that this great energy and knowledge can flow through--then you set up a situation of opposites that need not apply--for the ego can learn far more than you give it credit for--and it can assimilate that kind of experience when the individual realizes that he is able to. There is no need for what you think of as the ego to be swept aside and annihilated, even in a symbolic death...
"Now, the ego is a living portion of the entire self--and when, in your terms, you annihilate it for whatever reasons, symbolically or otherwise--for that time and to that degree, you are annihilating a portion of the entire self. The ego is not a growth, like a cancer, on top of the inner self to be shot off or to take potshots at or to be removed. It is a living psychological portion of your being, as real, for example, in physical terms, as an appendix--all a part of your being--but it is not a thing, as your appendix may be thought of. It is a living, psychological structure that is a part of you--and if you think of the entire self, for example, and this is not a particularly good analogy, as a circle--and think of the physical reality up here—are you following me?--So then you think of the ego as up here at the top of the circle looking outward at physical reality--but following this analogy, the self turns. As it turns, other portions of the self appear as ego--and you can shoot down a thousand egos and they will come to the surface again--because they grow automatically and beautifully and spontaneously from the depths of your being.
"So you re shooting down, in those terms, paper dragons...What I would like to see is someone carrying on the work that was only begun by Maslow. Study people who have such experiences on their own as a natural state of their being--without drugs, without techniques, without rules, without regulations, but rather as a natural manifestation of their consciousness. Ask them how they have these experiences. Ask them where their ego is or is not at such times. You will find that the ego, or what you think of it, as the term is unfortunate because it means so many things to so many people...
"But you will find that your 'I' consciousness then expands itself to contain such experiences of the universe--and it is not annihilated within the experience. Instead, it expands to contain it until it contains so much that it has to learn again what it is and assimilate all of its many parts. It learns and grows and discovers. And within the experience, it is like a wandering child who looks out at a new universe, but knows itself as a part of that universe. Now, that is what I would like to see done."
Barrie
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6205#msg6205)We send immeasurable vitality to you, and support all of those structures of consciousness with which you are familiar. You are never alone. (Pause.) We have always sent emissaries to you who understand your needs. Though you do not know us, we cherish you.
These S2 quotes really touched me, take my breath away. They speak of infinite, pure love, of being valued and cherished. Maybe this is the feeling people experience when they have a near death experience? Most come back to this existence talking about such an overwhelming sense of unconditional love when they die that they have to literally
force themselves to return to this existence. They long for the day they can return to that place.
Does anyone know if there's a recording somewhere of Jane speaking as S2? I do have access to most of the audio recordings, if by chance there's something on them. I'd just like to hear the difference with my own ears.
Quote from: voidypaul (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=5508#msg5508)'' I who am the source , sent a portion of myself , an independent portion , to you.................etc ''
+ from sess' 409 , pg 276
Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the scenario of Jesus, the "son" of God, being sent to us, a portion of God being sent to us by himself? I could let that association disturb me, the parallel there, depending on from which direction I view that seemingly coincidental concept.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6249#msg6249)'' I who am the source , sent a portion of myself , an independent portion , to you.................etc ''
+ from sess' 409 , pg 276
Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the scenario of Jesus, the "son" of God, being sent to us, a portion of God being sent to us by himself? I could let that association disturb me, the parallel there, depending on from which direction I view that seemingly coincidental concept.
Barrie Responds: It is really nothing at all like Jesus, the son of God, being sent to us. There is no prostelitizing, the punishment in any way, no threats or need to follow or else you are damned or in trouble, no dogma. Perhaps it is the kernal of truth behind the Jesus metaphor. But besides that, there are no true comparisons. The "I" here is not a person as God is often believed to be. There is no person walking about who is the Son of God who is "higher" than us or existing at all. In this Seth concept, there is no hierarchy and we are all equally a part of All that Is, or God, as is a piece of shit or anything else--All That Is includes all that is. There is no morality here. This is more like a background process as to how the universe came about and nonphysical beings trying to help or guide us-- as opposed to a religion with dogma, rules, punishment, and so forth. There is no us versus them; no cult. You may be projecting Christianity and its dogma and morality onto this quote--but it is not actually in the quote or the concept.
Supposedly, the Bible suggests not to kill. Well, so does Seth in his concepts...but this, too, doesn't pigeonhole the material as being in some sort of Christian cult or bag.
Well Barrie , you got that wrong too .
Deb with her insightful intuitions is much closer to the truth than you with your dismal understanding of the Christ entiy or soul + the christian faith or dogma , which you somehow confuse one with the other .
It is the same or v similar with Seth + S2 as it is with the Christ soul + the living Christ except that Christ is a much more advanced being than Seth will be for a long time yet .
The Christ soul/entity is somewhat more advanced or closer to ATI than S2 is + so He can send a fragment/personality essence of Himself that is more aware of His contact with ATI than Seth himself ever was .
The ''I'' that Deb was talking about is S2 Barrie + so is beyond personality based existence altogether + only created Seth as we know him because he is a personality fragment so he can then translate what S2 has given him + put it into a form that we can then understand . You just don't seem to have a grasp of the deeper implications of the mat' yet Barrie .
Of course there is a hierarchy you fool , yes i totally agree that we are all equal in essence , fron an ant to a man to a tree or flower or shadow , but these things , like you + me barrie are not inner selves or entitys or souls so obviously there is a natural hierarchy that exists between all beings . You have not as yet understood the concept of qualitative/quantative difference that i gave you a while ago barrie , if you do then your responce here would be totally different .
The Christ would be so much more advanced than you could ever concieve of Barrie that His reality would amount to a difference of planetary proportions in comparrison to what you know or understand me old fruit , even Seth pays homage to the Christ + yet you seem to think that Seth is more than Christ you numbskull . Where do you get your ideas from Barrie , it can't be the Seth mat' or you would easily agree with what i have said , you just seem to make it up as you go along + slip up over your own banana skins .
Oh yes , its you that has projected your feeble ideas of Christ etc onto Debs topic , she was just speculating + you have projected your own assumptions me old dear , a completely diff' thing altogether .
Seths mat' is from S2 Barrie . Still don't understand that yet do you . Deb with her open mindedness is much closer to the truth than you are .
peace , paul
Quote from: barrie (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6270#msg6270)It is really nothing at all like Jesus, the son of God, being sent to us. There is no prostelitizing, the punishment in any way, no threats or need to follow or else you are damned or in trouble, no dogma. Perhaps it is the kernal of truth behind the Jesus metaphor. But besides that, there are no true comparisons.
Yikes, maybe I need to clarify where I was going with my comment. I was just thinking I could interpret this statement ''I who am the source , sent a portion of myself , an independent portion , to you'' as possibly something Jane infused with her own religious background. But of course it's also the definition of our oversouls sending an essence of themselves (us) here, and the oversouls of oversouls...
Quote from: barrie (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6270#msg6270)You may be projecting Christianity and its dogma and morality onto this quote--but it is not actually in the quote or the concept.
No, I was just hoping Jane wasn't. As perfect as Jane was for delivering Seth's teachings, I sometimes wonder if she'd injected (unconsciously) her own internal interpretations occasionally. And that is what would be disturbing for me because I want to believe in the purity of the Seth materials. On the other hand, I could look at the Christianity myth as "art imitating life," where every fable, legend, mythology has a seed/kernel of truth in it's origin. That's all I meant.
And I do have very strong feelings against organized religion; almost abnormally so if I were to listen to my friends' criticisms of me. But I feel Jesus was a real person who was more Seth-like in his teachings and was really against organized religion himself. It's time and Christianity that twisted what he was about. And the fact that nothing he said was written down during his time on the planet and that all of the gospels about him were written at least 100 years after his death. What is written in the bible about his teachings was completely distorted to serve the purposes of the writers, religious leaders, to control and manipulate. I could go on...
Along my path towards truth over the years I've read many books trying to explain what happened with the story of Jesus, the creation of Christianity, the omission of gospels that didn't fit the story being spun, the distortions, control, corruption, rationalization for stealing and killing... much more than I've read anything like a bible. I read them because I doubted myself, my own lack of interest in religion while others around me seemed to swallow it hook, line and sinker. I was also curious about this historical figure that still has a fanatical following, 2000 years after his existence. One of the more interesting books I read was produced by Atheists for Jesus (http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/) (
Christianity Betrayed), of all things.
But also my take on it is that all the threats, punishment, all you've listed, had nothing to do with Jesus the person and everything to do with the religion manufactured after him. His main messages were that the power is within us, we can heal ourselves, we should treat others with respect, that "god" per se is within us.
Quote from: barrie (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6270#msg6270)Supposedly, the Bible suggests not to kill. Well, so does Seth in his concepts...but this, too, doesn't pigeonhole the material as being in some sort of Christian cult or bag.
Wow, where did that come from?
But I promise I won't call you an old bean, lol.
Not even sure what that means.
Well, I hope I've made my comment clearer. I think I've worked it to death, at this point.
Oh, attaching a text exchange with a friend over us both having broken air conditioners. My texts are the ones in green, my friend's are in grey. It just seemed to be related to this post of my religious-ness-less vs. almost everyone else I know. :)
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6299#msg6299)As perfect as Jane was for delivering Seth's teachings, I sometimes wonder if she'd injected (unconsciously) her own internal interpretations occasionally. And that is what would be disturbing for me because I want to believe in the purity of the Seth materials.
Barrie Responds: Seth did address this issue:
Seth (Session 47; CAPS originally underlined): "Truth contains no distortions, and this material with all my best efforts, and with yours (Rob & Jane), of necessity must contain distortions merely in order to make itself exist at all on your plane. I will never condone an attitude in which either you or Ruburt maintain that you hold undiluted truth through these sessions. Any material, to exist on your plane, MUST TO SOME EXTENT DONE THE ATTIRE of your plane, and in the very entry to your plane it must be somewhat distorted. I must use phrases with which your minds are somewhat familiar. I must use Ruburt's subconscious to some degree. If I did not take advantage of your own camouflage system, then YOU would not be able to understand the material at this time. Inner data, even this, MUST make its entry through some distortion. We must always work together, but you must never consider me as an INFALLIBLE source. THIS MATERIAL IS MORE VALID THAN ANY MATERIAL POSSIBLE ON YOUR PLANE, BUT IT IS NEVERTHELESS TO SOME DEGREE CONDITIONED BY THE CAMOUFLAGE ATTRIBUTES OF THE PLANE."
Seth (ESP Class, 9-11-73): "Let no one be disturbed at anyone who distorts my messages, for they are seeds that will be carried in the wind. Some will become apples and some peaches. They will be used as ideas should be used and not bowed down before. They will be dispersed as they should be, and their vitality used to seed the creativity of each person who received them. And each of you, in your own way, should and shall receive the message in your own way and use it as you wish in your own playful creativity."
Seth (Session 513): "Ruburt makes his verbal knowledge available for our use, and quite automatically the two of us together cause the various words that will be spoken. Distractions can occur, as any information can be distorted. We are used to working together now, however, AND THE DISTORTIONS ARE VERY FEW..."
Barrie Now Comments: Below is Session 513 excerpt in a little more of its content:
Seth (Session 513): "This concentration away from the physical system may make it appear as if her consciousness is blotted out. Instead, more is added to it. Now from my own field of reality I focus my attention toward the woman, but the words that she speaks - these words upon the pages - are not initially verbal at all.
"In the first place, language as you know it is a slow affair: letter by letter strung out to make a word, and words to make a sentence, the result of a linear thought pattern. Language, as you know it, is partially and grammatically the end product of your physical time sequences. You can only focus upon so many things at one time, and your language structure is not given to the communication of intricate, simultaneous experience.
"I am aware of a different kind of experience, not linear, and can focus upon and react to an infinite variety of simultaneous events. Ruburt could not express them, and so they must be leveled out into linear expression if they are to be communicated. This ability to perceive and react to unlimited simultaneous events is a basic characteristic of each whole self or entity. Therefore, I do not claim it as some feat that is exclusively my own.
"Each reader, being presently ensconced within a physical form, I presume (humorously), knows only a small portion of himself - as I mentioned earlier. The entity is the overall identity of which his personality is one manifestation - an independent and eternally valid portion.
"In these communications, therefore, Ruburt's consciousness expands, and yet focuses in a different dimension, a dimension between his reality and mine, a field relatively free of distraction. Here I impress certain concepts upon him, with his permission and assent. They are not neutral, in that all knowledge or information bears the stamp of the personality who holds it or passes it on.
"Ruburt makes his verbal knowledge available for our use, and quite automatically the two of us together cause the various words that will be spoken. Distractions can occur, as any information can be distorted. We are used to working together now, however, AND THE DISTORTIONS ARE VERY FEW..."
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6299#msg6299)But I feel Jesus was a real person who was more Seth-like in his teachings and was really against organized religion himself.
What Jesus was trying to show with his miracles such as walking on water was that each of us can create our own reality because we are all a part of All That Is. Jesus encouraged Peter to walk on water, and Peter succeeded up to a point. I don't think Jesus expected anyone to worship him, but this has become the main theme of the Christian Church.
According to Seth, there are many things in the Gospels which were inserted by the proponents of organized religion. For instance, what Jesus is supposed to have said to Peter: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I build my Church".
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6306#msg6306)
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6299#msg6299)But I feel Jesus was a real person who was more Seth-like in his teachings and was really against organized religion himself.
What Jesus was trying to show with his miracles such as walking on water was that each of us can create our own reality because we are all a part of All That Is. Jesus encouraged Peter to walk on water, and Peter succeeded up to a point. I don't think Jesus expected anyone to worship him, but this has become the main theme of the Christian Church.
According to Seth, there are many things in the Gospels which were inserted by the proponents of organized religion. For instance, what Jesus is supposed to have said to Peter: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I build my Church".
Barrie Responds: As Jack Kerouac said, "Walking on water wasn't built in a day."
Quote from: barrie (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6305#msg6305)We are used to working together now, however, AND THE DISTORTIONS ARE VERY FEW..."
Barrie thanks for all of the quotes, they've eased my mind a bit.
BTW, how do you have access to the quotes you put up, do you have all of the books typed up and stored in a huge database?
Going back to where I was headed with this (only because, once again, Ivan on Facebook came up with a quote that perfectly matched what was in my head):
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6299#msg6299)possibly something Jane infused with her own religious background
"Ruburt's (Jane's) mind is an excellent one, and well given to serve our needs at this time. ...
Ruburt's intellect had to be of high quality. His conscious and unconscious mind had to be acquainted with certain ideas to begin with, in order for the complexity of this material to come through.
In the beginning, for example, there is always a distortion of material by the person who receives it, at least on the topmost subconscious level. So an individual whose personal prejudices are at a minimum is excellent.
If for example Ruburt's prejudices happen to lie along lines which do not contradict what I know to be true, then all the better, and there is much less resistance. ...
Material like this is sifted through many layers of subconscious conceptions, and is subsequently colored. People strongly believing in your organized religions color the material in a manner that is highly disadvantageous, and that unfortunately often adds to existing superstitions.
Ruburt's mind, believe it or not, is much like my own; though, if you'll forgive me, in a very limited fashion, therefore the distortions are much less distortive, much less harmful, and more easily discovered and cleared. ...
Others less perfectionist than myself are content with more distortion. I am not."
Seth (Jane Roberts) 'The Early Sessions', Book 1, Session 27
Of course
@barrie previously supplied a great collection of quotes addressing my concern. For some reason I'm thinking someone had already put up this quote that I just added, but it didn't turn up on a Search. So forgive me if I'm becoming repetitive...
Hi folks ,
hope you are all in good health + happy.
I wanted to clear up some of the questions that arose about my initial posts on void.
One of the main questions i am asked is why would i or anyone find void a desirable or illuminating experience when there are infinite other worlds + experiences to explore .
We will have to go back to Seths explanation of the creation of the first planetary system that was created that hosted the first humans, wherein he states that before the creation of this system , first consciousness had to create the void .
A loaded statement indeed + unfortunately Seth added scant elaboration except that this void could be likened to an infinite mind , + which void came out of one that was greater than itself.
So what did he mean by this ? How can a void come out of one that was greater than itself, surely a void is a void is a void + what was this greater void + where did it come from ?
Obviously Seth is saying that this physical system (+ all systems) must have an initial void state before any manifestation can take place , + logically the first void had to have been created by ATI but Seth is a little sneaky about his terms + definitions here as he describes the first 'object' that ATI created was the unendurable mass with no weight . I think Seth did this deliberately so that folks could work out for themselves the connection between the unendurable mass + the void.
So , why do i claim this connection ? If again you think about it logically then the unend' mass , no weight , is an 'object' (Seths description) in the sense that it is the first 'thing' created but since its creation is before the manifestation of any sort of time or space then it is not an object in the sense that manifest beings (us) think of an object , Seths trickyness again .
This unend' mass (void) is created before time + space, in Seths terms because he then goes on to say that this unend' mass then exploded , starting all of the processes of creation which then of course does include time + space but more on a dreaming 'level' than a physical one .
So this unend' mass (void) exists prior to space/time + prior to any manifestation whatsoever. If one tries to contemplate the existence of an unend' mass/ no weight which does not exist in time or space then the penny drops to the conclusion that it is in fact a void + is the greater void that Seth alludes to when he said it came out of one greater than itself.
Seth has also described what he calls the undifferentiated area/level wherin con's takes its first step 'outside' of the system in which he has his manifestation + 'in to' an area where absolutely no objects or manifestations occur , even of thoughts + that this can initially appear to be an infinite + empty 'space'.He also says that this is in itself an illusion as the experience of an inf' empty space is just a first introduction into Void or undiff' level as the cons' cannot as yet cope with the initial shock of void + must in some way accommodate itself to the inf' reality of its non manifest state of being .
I think i should leave it here for the moment because it is such a confusing subject to most manifest beings (not just humans) + for now it is just an introduction into the vairious void states that do exist , one within the other but still i must point out that cons' or awareness even though it is unmanifest , even as thoughts , is still most definately present + in a way that is so intense that it would be impossible for a manifest being to experience without blowing a fuse .
So i will wait to see if anyone can fathom what it is i am talking about . Needless to say that it is a most satisfying experience because out of void states all + every manifest beings must come which includes the cons' units that Seth describes as the 'first' cons's to be relased from ATI's inf' subjective reality , so yes it is an ecstatic transcendent state , believe or not.
regards , paul
Its fascinating to witness two egos go head to head. Well done!
Quote from: WindWalker (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=11018#msg11018)
Its fascinating to witness two egos go head to head. Well done!
You just cracked me up, brilliant! You nailed that one. BTW, welcome to the forum.
Hey yall!
I havent read this entire post but the gist is "what is the void state." I encourage the OP to explore astral projection because you can actually experience this state yourself. Im not sure what Seth has said about the "void" but in AP circles it is simply a black void where all creativity resides yet itself contains nothing. In AP when you experience the void, at first it is simply blackness where "astral vision" first appears and then after you experience pitch darkness you suddenly experience "3d blackness" where the darkness begins to turn 3d. Its not that you only "see" the darkness take on a 3d quality you actually feel it do so. It is difficult to explain because even thoughts seem to have a 3d effect. Maybe that is because it is a physically focused consciousness suddenly taking up residence in the void. Who knows! The void seems to be creativity unfolding from within itself by manifesting thought forms. At least in AP experiences. It is where all form and all realitys come into being, but again seems to contain "nothing", just blackness that turns 3d once consciousness enters the picture. . Many people in the AP community never get past the void. Once they "get out" and experience the void, they snap back to being physically focused and their experience is over. Sometimes, before hypnagogic imagery appears before sleep, you will notice a blackness that turns 3d before it is filled with imagery. Not sure if this would be considered the void or not because consciousness is still physically focused before hypnagogoc imagery appears. Anyway-just wanted to chime in to encourage the OP to research the void in astral projection literature. Latr!
Quote from: barrie (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=6229#msg6229)
34. I talk only of the Seth mat' , + your superfluous beliefs about the pulsations are an example of how wayward you are + why i keep telling you to go back to the books rather than rely on your own feeble ego + its so v wrong assumptions/interpretations + beliefs + rather childlike suppositions of the Seth material .
35. And you teach this shyte to other people + pretend to be knowledgable !
36. You are not even half right about the pulsations , so that makes you as much a pretender as Frank who you villify for his own obvious self translations of the material , look in the mirror Barrie
I found this post when I searched the forum for "pulsations". The quote above is from Barrie, one of the original Seth students, so it is worth looking at again.(Barrie has in fact quoted the rather abusive statements of ex-member Paul, and he replies to Paul)
The basic point which Seth makes, as I understand it, is that the matter we see and touch in this world is neither "solid" nor unchanging. Particles of matter switch on and off like a flickering light bulb.
"All material is energy, appearing in the physical field into patterns that have been prepared for it. The illusion of rigidity is the result of your own outer senses, a perception which is too slow to catch the constant pulsations, as bits of energy that compose material constantly disappear entirely and are replaced. (Jane smiled and gestured.) There are as many intervals when your material world does not exist as there are intervals in which it does exist. For our present purposes we will call these intervals negative intervals. This particular idea is one that I have been most concerned with getting over, and I hope that I have laid the ground properly for it. When I use the word interval I am of course using it to make the idea understandable.
The fact is, material on your field is composed of constant energy pulsations; and while to you the appearance is one of permanence to a fair degree, and while I have said that the pulsations are constant, nevertheless they are completely distinct, separate and new pulsations that are not continuous in the terms that you apply to one object that is continuous. Therefore, there is what I will call the negative interval, when one pulsation has vanished from your plane and another is about to take its place. Alone, each negative interval may be negligible, but taken en masse this adds up until there is as much negative matter as there is positive matter." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 2 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts, Session 61)
https://amzn.eu/0JK5ccD
This is Lynda Madden Dahl's interpretation:
"
And with each creation, millions of times a second, the object changes, because action is change. In a camouflage reality with its root assumptions of time and space, very gradual change looks like development, or aging and wear. But a muscleman cannot grow muscles by working out through time, in a medium of space, because neither exists. And without time and space, there can be no motion. Seth said earlier when discussing the spacious present, there is no place to go, and the reason is because no motion can occur unless there is both time and space—and, again, neither exists." (from "Living a Safe Universe: A Book for Seth Readers" by Lynda Madden Dahl)
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18258#msg18258)
Barrie has in fact quoted the rather abusive statements of ex-member Paul, and he replies to Paul
Yes that was in the early days of the forum. Barrie and Paul had followed each other from forum to forum for years, getting into the same arguments, and giving grief back to each other. My impression was they were enjoying it, like two old friends who like to badger each other. I recall there were times when Paul addressed Barrie as "old bean," which some took offense to. But per the web: "Old bean" is a classic British familiar form of address, roughly equivalent to an American's greeting of "buddy," "pal" "friend," or, at least lately, "dude." It doesn't actually mean anything, although to American ears it certainly sounds slightly odd." I've seen Barrie "get into it" with other people on Facebook and other forums, so I don't see him as too much of a victim. There are more than a few people who consider themselves the world's authority on Seth, and it can be like the clash of the titans some times.
When I finally asked Paul to tone things down a bit, since some people were becoming upset, he said... well never mind, he was not abusive towards me but he certainly has an ego and decided SoS was not the place for him.
Quote from: Seth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18258#msg18258)
All material is energy, appearing in the physical field into patterns that have been prepared for it. The illusion of rigidity is the result of your own outer senses, a perception which is too slow to catch the constant pulsations, as bits of energy that compose material constantly disappear entirely and are replaced.
This to me is very key in understanding how our reality is made, and ties in really well with the quantum physics explanation of the constant flickering of particles in and out of our reality. I really enjoy Lynda's explanations of Seth concepts in more layperson terms—but I can't say it's easy for me to fully grasp (on a deep level) that there is no time or space when I see "evidence" of it every day... from my perspective in this reality.
Here's an interesting article on quantum foam. https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-01_NutshellReadmore.html
"At the quantum scale, space is a writhing, frantic, ever-changing foam, with particles popping into existence and disappearing in the wink of an eye. This is not just a theoretical idea—it's confirmed."
This is explained using an analogy to bubbles popping:
"At the quantum level, matter and antimatter particles are constantly popping into existence and popping back out, with an electron-positron pair here and a top quark-antiquark pair there. This behavior is the reason that scientists call these ephemeral particles "quantum foam": It's similar to how bubbles in foam form and then pop."
Hi Sena, Hi All,
Wow. Just yesterday I was reading Seth Speaks, where he talks about death and the death experience. In this section of SS, he also talks about these pulsations.
In fact, I've noticed that in Seth Speaks, Seth talks about these "pulsations" in two different places. One place is in Chapter 9, "the Death Experience", S535. The other place is in the Appendix, ESP Class Session, Tuesday, January 5, 1971.
In both of these two sessions, however, he seems to refer to these pulsations in terms of "consciousness" flickering on and off.
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
- jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18261#msg18261)
Consider this analogy. For one instant your consciousness is "alive," focused in physical reality. Now for the next instant it is focused somewhere else entirely, in a different system of reality. It is unalive, or "dead" to your way of thinking. The next instant it is "alive" again, focused in your reality, but you are not aware of the intervening instant of unaliveness. Your sense of continuity therefore is built up entirely on every other pulsation of consciousness. Is that clear to you?
jbseth, thanks for that quote. So it would appear that being "absent-minded" is a normal state of affairs. Seth's statements seem to imply that even in life we experience death, "a different system of reality".
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18260#msg18260)
This to me is very key in understanding how our reality is made, and ties in really well with the quantum physics explanation of the constant flickering of particles in and out of our reality. I really enjoy Lynda's explanations of Seth concepts in more layperson terms—but I can't say it's easy for me to fully grasp (on a deep level) that there is no time or space when I see "evidence" of it every day... from my perspective in this reality.
Hi Deb, Hi All,
Seth appears to use this "pulsations" idea, in several places in SS. In my copy of this book, in the index, on the topic of "time", it says that the "true nature of time" can be found on pages 235 and 236.
These are the last few pages of Session 567, which are the last few pages of Chapter 16, "Probable Systems, Men and Gods", Seth's chapter on probabilities.
In the first few paragraphs of this session, Seth talks about probable events and probable selves. Then he talks about time, and he does so in regards to these pulses. However, here, he doesn't just talk about the short duration pulses, but he also talks about long duration pulses.
Here's what he says about "time".
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
- jbseth