Seth preferred the term "All That Is" to "God". All That Is includes everything in physical reality and non-physical reality. Does that mean pantheism?
In this video, philosopher Mary-Jane Rubenstein talks about pantheism:
Something rather important in this connection is that there is more than one variety of pantheism, as was pointed out by William James. This is interesting from the point of view of the Seth teachings, as Jane Roberts wrote a whole book about William James. Rubinstein refers to William James in one of her books:
QuoteThese two different meanings of "pan" map onto the distinction William
James makes in A Pluralistic Universe between "monistic" pantheism on the
one hand and "pluralistic" pantheism on the other. For the monist, James
tells us, the world is one "tremendous unity," in which "everything is present to everything else in one vast instantaneous co-implicated completeness."
For the pluralist, by contrast, the things of the world are "in some respects connected, [and] in other respects independent, so that they are not members
of one all-inclusive individual fact." Of course, James is a pragmatist, so as
William Connolly reminds us, he knows he cannot say which of these visions
is ultimately "true," or if it even makes sense to speak that way. But James
sides with pluralism for a host of ethical, political, and psychological reasons:
If we affirm an inherent plurality rather than a primordial unity, then "evil"
calls for a practical response rather than a speculative explanation; differences
of opinion are signs of health rather than pathology; and our everyday experiences amount to "intimacy" with the universe itself. This is perhaps James's
most novel critique of the monist tradition: Presumably, the pantheist locates
the divine in and as the world in order to gain intimacy with it. But if the
world-as-divine bears none of the characteristics of the only world we ever
experience (its desires and mistakes, its passions and pains, its earthworms and
Gershwin), then the monist places himself even farther than the ordinary theist from God.46 So James opts for pluralism, which makes of the universe what
he calls a multiverse: a loosely coherent chain of complex connections that's
never quite all-in-all.
To summarize, it would seem that if Seth is a pantheist, he is a "pluralistic pantheist" rather than a "monistic pantheist".
Here is another video by Mary-Jane Rubenstein in which she talks about the "Multiverse", which resonates with the Seth teaching of "probable realities":
This question has come up a couple of times here. Truthfully I've always considered Seth an UN-teacher of any "ism"—and never thought to label his explanation of the basis of all existence. What I got from the materials is that there is no God-figure, despite how desperate mankind wants to believe there is. There is an undercurrent conscious energy flowing through all of existence, a unifying consciousness that rarely feels unified, because humans have come to feel superior to nature. That's something else Seth talked a lot about— the problems caused by our distancing ourselves from nature.
However, Rubenstein does a good job of describing a lot of what Seth said in her definition of pantheism. Yet when I looked up the definition, it said: 1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God; 2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods. For me doctrine, God and worship are religious words, and religion turns me off. To me, the Seth materials lean more towards natural science/physics.
Panentheism (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,1376.msg18125.html#msg18125) came up here in January 2021, but I still hesitate to label Seth's teachings. Calling all that is "God" bothers me, it's my hangup, I know, but when I think of God I right away think of people mentally creating a supreme being made in man's image. The wiki on panentheism says it is "the belief that the divine intersects every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time." Closer to what Seth said, but divine is "of, from, or like God or a god," so I'm back to square one. :)
Pan
Panorama
Panoptic
Pan the Is M
Panoramic
Panama
What does Pan mean anyway? It is the root of "pan-the-is-m"
Another ism ...."or some ism" as Seth would remind us.
Pan means to me "all". Maybe even flexibility? To be open?
Pan in a simple dictionary form is: a Greek god of pastures, flocks, and shepherds usually represented as having the legs, horns, and ears of a goat and often depicted playing the "panpipe".
I like to think of Pan as symbolic of each of us. For me I am the sheperdess of my flock, my pastures, I definitely have legs, antennae, and ears and whats so special about a goat? lol
Anyway my flock is for me... my beliefs and thoughts and my aspects/parts of me that show up in internal dialogues. My congregation. My inner "church". My temple. I guide them or I dont. They support me constructively or they dont. It is my job to collect the lost ones not anyone else's. My pasture? Well thats my world. The one I am the center of. Am I not the director of my movie?
Now pan over here for this new view instead of that one you worry over so. See? The pasture is greener and the sun shines a little brighter. Or I can return to my old house and wife of states I will never go further with. Me and my wife/husband (states of mind I married) can just sit on our comfy sofa and never move.
If they have rules in a dogma oriented ism that aint for me. I dont think Pan was about rules but "all". Its all good in the sight of ....."insert name here".
----
As a side note (yep a word thing) I see the word "God" starting with GO and ending with the letter that represents past tense, "D".
And GO + D means to me = Already Happened. And I am the one who authors that. Invisibly or visibly. I am the unseen and the seen. You know what I mean?
schmism is an ism too. ism schmism. lol
"You must accept all." still gonna rebel lol
"You must accept the one" - k buh bye
The only one that has your truth is you. You are the way the truth and the light. teehee Deb. (or whoever - I was feeling playful))
You are the only one that can make that happen. And we have a powerhouse inside of us ever so patient and ever so guiding. We are a portion of all that is. Divinity has stereo-typical connotations that people stuck there. Di-Vine. The Vine. The vine of All That Is. Di means 2. Double.
Starts with a past tense letter *S*
Next letter is "I" as in I AM. Then the word Vine.
Outside Self and Inner Self. That is two. Or if you like, Your whole Self with creative power. Or, You and Psyche. Whatever you like.
It takes two to tango. Consciousness and our direction of it.
Divine to me .... you might as well say B Vine. Be the vine.
Seth did talk about Pan. But he also did the unteaching towards the "ism" of the world.
Quote from: Deb on October 17, 2021, 10:07:01 AMYet when I looked up the definition, it said: 1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God; 2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.
Deb, one of the things Rubenstein implies is that pantheism has historically been a "dirty word" in philosophy and theology. I think she wants to go beyond the dictionary definition of pantheism.
It may be that Seth avoided using the word because of its negative associations.
Quote from: strangerthings on October 17, 2021, 11:43:10 AMAnyway my flock is for me... my beliefs and thoughts and my aspects/parts of me that show up in internal dialogues. My congregation. My inner "church". My temple. I guide them or I dont. They support me constructively or they dont. It is my job to collect the lost ones not anyone else's. My pasture? Well thats my world. The one I am the center of. Am I not the director of my movie?
St, pantheism as understood by Rubenstein seems to be consistent with the idea that the Divine is within every conscious being, and that is consistent with the Seth teachings:
"Divine subjectivity is indeed infinite. It can never be entirely objectified. When the worlds, yours and others, were thus created, there was indeed an explosion of unimaginable proportions, as the divine spark of inspiration exploded into objectivity.
The earth then appeared as consciousness transformed itself into the many facets of nature. The atoms and molecules were alive, aware—they were no longer simply a part of a divine syntax, but they spoke themselves through the very nature of their being (gesturing). They became the living, aware vowels and syllables through which consciousness could form matter.
But in your terms this was still largely a dream world, though it was fully fashioned. It had, generally speaking, all of the species that you now know. These all correlated with the multitudinous kinds of consciousnesses that had clamored for release, and those consciousnesses were spontaneously endowed by All That Is with those forms that fit their requirements.
You had the birth of individualized consciousness as you think of it into physical context. Those consciousnesses were individualized before the beginning, but not manifest. But individualized consciousness was not quite all that bold. It did not attach itself completely to its earthly forms at the start, but rested often within its "ancient" divine heritage. In your terms, it is as if the earth and all of its creatures were partially dreaming, and not as focused within physical reality as they are now."
—DEaVF1 Chapter 1: Session 883, October 1, 1979
I love being reminded of how wonderful our ancient divine heritage really is.
To feel it is even more yummy. Thank you Sena. :)
I have not watched the video though. I have been working on something. I am also not the kind of person that likes to read too much about other philosophies or watch a lot of other philosophical videos because I want to stay focused. I feel as though... "if it isn't broken do not fix it." Im kind of like Dolores Cannon in that regard. I was tickled somewhat when she said that because I too felt that way. It can get distracting and has a tendency to pull me in another direction. Sometimes I get fussy and I want to be comfy.
I still have not listened to Pena Chodron or whoever that is. Brene Brown is simple and I like that. She can listen to it for me *L*
Quote from: strangerthings on October 18, 2021, 01:52:13 AMI have not watched the video though. I have been working on something.
St, yes watching a video involves a sacrifice of time and energy, more than glancing through a couple of paragraphs. Rubenstein is an academic, so careful not to say anything too controversial.
Quote from: Sena on October 18, 2021, 08:19:57 AMQuote from: strangerthings on October 18, 2021, 01:52:13 AMI have not watched the video though. I have been working on something.
Rubenstein is an academic, so careful not to say anything too controversial.
Im a rebel so controversy never stopped me *L*
Im just a little more careful in how I present stuff.
I am learning how to weave in and out of checking myself and not harming certain things for a person.
But I cant control anyone's interpretation and do not plan on it. That would be a sacrifice way too tiring to try.
Academics do have their "memememe" aspect which I sometimes enjoy poking at. *S*
But when it comes to Spiritual Dogma order (blue bloods)....I often can not find my cork. *L*
I looked up the word I would say yes. But, of course, no worship implied. But All That Is is all that is.
AS THE TRAIN PASSES BY (5-4-80)
©Poem by Barrie Gellis, from "Outside Is A Secret Key"
justgetitdowninonesecond
a boy pitching in a softball
wearing sandals on a big field
as the train passes by,
as god floats his eye ball by
as in everyeachpassingsecond
everythingallatonce
happens
all the time
--------------
from "EMOTIONS, FEELINGS & GOD (2-9-81)
©Poem by Barrie Gellis
god is an unconscious harmony
(unconscious, REAL, and affecting life
each day in every minute way)
amongst all beings,
and each being contains the whole within it
we are god's chromosomes
who in some vast moreness
is the chromosome of some other god or dimension
and it's never-ending
and this whole never-ending scheme of things
(visible & invisible always intermixing & dancing)
IS THE CONCEPT OF GOD
and any link in this chain is not any less holy
than any other link
or than the chain as a whole
from one endless eternity-direction to the other
--------------
GOD IS THE HAIR (5-20-16)
©Poem by Barrie Gellis,
god isn't a christian
god isn't a jew
god is the hair
and not the hairdo
Quote from: barrie on October 18, 2021, 08:31:25 PMgod is the hair
and not the hairdo
That was good!
Well they are all really good and thanks for sharing!
Putting poetry out there is not always an easy thing to do so I muchly appreciate it ;)
Quote from: barrie on October 18, 2021, 08:31:25 PMand this whole never-ending scheme of things
(visible & invisible always intermixing & dancing)
IS THE CONCEPT OF GOD
and any link in this chain is not any less holy
than any other link
or than the chain as a whole
from one endless eternity-direction to the other
barrie, that is excellent. Quite consistent with Giordano Bruno's ideas which got him burnt at the stake:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
One variant of pantheism is "pandeism" - "a belief that God created and then became the universe and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_pandeism
Quote from: Sena on October 18, 2021, 10:52:22 PMarrie, that is excellent. Quite consistent with Giordano Bruno's ideas which got him burnt at the stake
Sena, I'm glad there is no more appetite for this sort of BBQ nowadays.
I think I'd like to join in this discussion. I haven't watched the video, and I haven't read every word of every post, although I did scan the posts. I have things to do, and sometimes I just can't do all the reading I should.
Unlike Deb, I like the word God. I didn't grow up in a religious household, so the terminology of religion wasn't ruined for me. If I say God, please just substitute ATI in your mind.
I searched the thread for "gestalt" and didn't find it, which surprised me. Seth said that God is a gestalt of everything in existence. A gestalt is a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. Thus, God knows himself as himself (not a male of course), but also knows himself as each individual and thing within him. Thus, God knows himself as you, as me, as the chairs we sit on, as the rocks in your garden, as the plants and animals, etc. Unlike human beings, whose minds are limited to focussing on one thing at a time, God's focus is infinite. God has the ability to focus on everything in existence at once. That part of God which is only God, however, does not exist in a physical place, or even in a "mind" in the traditional sense. The wholeness of God (presumably) is in the experience of being aware of everything within him. I imagine, however, that God does have thoughts of his own. There must be some part of the universe which is just God, and that would be the part which is able to make sense of everything.
God, it would seem, sets the tenor of the universe. You may recall that somewhere in the Material, Seth commented that God briefly experimented with selfishness as the emotional atmosphere of the universe -- as in the adage "if everyone sweeps his own doorstep, the whole world will be clean". But selfishness didn't work out, so altruism -- helping others -- is now the "rule" of the universe. I assume that the brief experience of living in a selfish universe explains why there is so much selfishness in the world. There are people among us who would like that to still be the "rule" (notice that I am putting "rule" in quotes because it is not a hard and fast rule; we all have the freedom to ignore it).
Now, as for the word "pantheism", there are two distinct meanings to that word. I think that "pan" means "everything", but it also means "nature. Thus, the older concept of pantheism was that God was found in nature. The newer concept is that God and the universe are the same thing.
As for why everything exists within God, Seth said God's consciousness permeates the energy that forms everything in the universe. In other words, the living energy that forms the universe carries God's consciousness with it. This gets us back to God knowing himself as you and me and the chair and the rock, yet also himself as the Whole.
The Christians say that human beings were made in the image of God, but I think Seth would say that human beings have the same "psychic structure" as God. Thus, each atom within us is an individual, the same for each molecule. Our organs could be compared to the many universes within God, and the whole human being could be compared to God himself. In other words, life exists in a hierarchical structure at all levels of the universe, both macro and micro.
Sorry for going on so long.
With Pan being a "god" I like to think of our magical flute as our creative power. Our beliefs can color the world where ever we go changing wilting into lifted life!
Seth says we are baby gods in training.
We are an important part of All That Is. All That Is loves us, approves of us, honors us and respects us.
I feel this and enjoy my universe as my friend.
As Byron Katie says, "Life is always better than the story we are telling about it."
Yes, I am a huge Byron Katie fan!
Thanks Caleb for your post. For someone whose Seth books are in storage, you have a superb memory ;)
I decided to go back and read what I wrote, and I found it to be poorly written, so I have revised it now. But thanks for your comment.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 18, 2021, 11:55:49 PMGod, it would seem, sets the tenor of the universe. You may recall that somewhere in the Material, Seth commented that God briefly experimented with selfishness as the emotional atmosphere of the universe -- as in the adage "if everyone sweeps his own doorstep, the whole world will be clean". But selfishness didn't work out, so altruism -- helping others -- is now the "rule" of the universe. I assume that the brief experience of living in a selfish universe explains why there is so much selfishness in the world. There are people among us who would like that to still be the "rule" (notice that I am putting "rule" in quotes because it is not a hard and fast rule; we all have the freedom to ignore it).
Barrie Comments: Hi Caleb, I do not recall Seth saying God experimented with selfishness. Perhaps you can site a more specific source or session. I can't find it in the Seth Material. I do recall Seth saying that people's ideas of God stem from their own psychological ideas about themselves and people. So, a selfish people would imagine a selfish God.
Seth's idea is that the basis of the universe, the substance of the universe and what holds it together is love--and all people are therefore intrinsically loving, compassionate and good--for they are a part OF the universe and God. IF they act out of harmony with their nature it is because they have been emotionally cut off from it--often various extended forms of childhood abuse or cultural/societal/familial teachings--causes this--but the original nature still exists and is always there for them to get in touch with again.
Seth also explained that when people feel they are bad or worthless, they see others that way--which allows them to tell themselves that it is OK to hurt them--via selfishness, violence or whatever. This is what allows folks to create and participate in the suicide/murder scenario of war.
He never said that this was some offshoot or bleedthru of a time when God practiced selfishness.
Seth also said that we created the whole of physical reality to learn both that we create our own reality via our thoughts, beliefs, expectations and emotions AND in so doing to include helping and not harming others--which means acting in harmony with our nature of love, compassion and goodness--which would naturally bring us joy as well. The path to this "place" is ultimately spontaneity which leads us to our authentic selves, so to speak.
Once these lessons are learned we are then ready to leave the reincarnation cycle behind, leave the human race, so to speak, and move on to other realities that are more expansive,intense and instant.
So, I never read about this experiment of God to be selfish and all that you said which follows. So, if you have a source outside of your memory, please share it.
I'm on my way to bed, and later I will be busy filling orders for my home-based business. But even if I had the time, I don't think I could find that passage in the Material, given that the Material is so voluminous. But I definitely remember reading it, and my recollection is that Seth said it much the way that I did, that God experimented with selfishness as his internal environment, the idea being that if we live in universe of co-creators, and every co-creator takes care of himself, then everyone is taken care of. But I doubt I could find it for you.
I'm guessing that I read it in one of the Early Sessions, or perhaps The Seth Material or in one of the early books that Seth dictated.
Now, I don't remember Seth saying that we have to reach a certain point of development before we stop reincarnating (that's largely a Buddhist concept -- that we must achieve enlightenment in order to stop the reincarnation cycle). I believe that we have the freedom to choose how many times we come back. However, I do recall Seth saying that we have to reincarnate at least twice because we must experience being a man, being a woman, and being a child -- and that can be done in two lives.
See you all later.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 19, 2021, 08:01:59 AMI'm on my way to bed, and later I will be busy filling orders for my home-based business. But even if I had the time, I don't think I could find that passage in the Material, given that the Material is so voluminous. But I definitely remember reading it, and my recollection is that Seth said it much the way that I did, that God experimented with selfishness as his internal environment, the idea being that if we live in universe of co-creators, and every co-creator takes care of himself, then everyone is taken care of. But I doubt I could find it for you.
I'm guessing that I read it in one of the Early Sessions, or perhaps The Seth Material or in one of the early books that Seth dictated.
Now, I don't remember Seth saying that we have to reach a certain point of development before we stop reincarnating (that's largely a Buddhist concept -- that we must achieve enlightenment in order to stop the reincarnation cycle). I believe that we have the freedom to choose how many times we come back. However, I do recall Seth saying that we have to reincarnate at least twice because we must experience being a man, being a woman, and being a child -- and that can be done in two lives.
See you all later.
Hi Caleb, Well, I certainly do not remember seeing in the Seth Material, the Early Sessions or any book or class transcript what you remember about God experimenting with being selfish. IF you can't site any source but your memory--at this point--then I would say your memory is faulty in this case.
Seth certainly did say all that I said about love, compassion and goodness and leaving the human race behind...both Seth and Seth2...and that is why we created and needed F1--and its linear time and vulnerability.
The word "enlightenment" is your word. I never said that Seth used that term...and he did not use it; nor would I.
To my way of thinking: What Seth has said in this regard does not seem Buddhist-like--as it involves infinite probable and dream realities as well as -- and the belief that physical reality is as sacred and holy as nonphysical reality--and that the body IS the soul in flesh--and it does take as many lifetimes needed.
And leaving the reincarnation cycle behind--is not an end--for there is no end--just further learning and growing...as God itself is still learning and growing...and is not an "end" or perfect being, entity and/or gestalt.
Barrie, one of the reasons I remember that passage about selfishness was that I found it so remarkable. One wants to think of God (ATI) as perfect, but as you said, God is evolving. I am able to imagine an instance when God thought, "If everyone has the ability to take care of himself, and does so, then everyone will be taken care of", and then further down the line realizing that that wasn't a workable solution after all. I don't know why it should be so hard for you to accept that God may have done such a thing. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that the passage was only about a sentence long, something like ... "All That Is considered selfishness once as the environment for the universe, but abandoned it because ...". In other words, I think it was a short comment by Seth, not a long passage.
As I read what you have written, I see -- or perhaps imagine -- that you are putting your own slant on the Seth material. I think it is normal for human beings to remember things with a bias that agrees with their beliefs. I am no different. This is one of the reasons that I have decided that I must dig my Seth books out of moth balls and start reading them again, so that I can speak about Seth with more accuracy.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 19, 2021, 07:16:47 PMAs I read what you have written, I see -- or perhaps imagine -- that you are putting your own slant on the Seth material. I think it is normal for human beings to remember things with a bias that agrees with their beliefs.
Hi Caleb, Where or with what ideas or concepts do you believe that I am doing this? Where in what I have written to you do you believe that I have put or am I putting my own slant on the Seth material?
Nothing specific. Just the general tenor of your comments. I'm not looking for a debate.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 18, 2021, 11:55:49 PMAs for why everything exists within God, Seth said God's consciousness permeates the energy that forms everything in the universe. In other words, the living energy that forms the universe carries God's consciousness with it. This gets us back to God knowing himself as you and me and the chair and the rock, yet also himself as the Whole.
Caleb, I think what it means is that if I wish to worship God, I need to worship myself, but probably worship is not necessary in pantheism. The great cathedrals and temples like Angkor Wat are for the glory of the builders.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 19, 2021, 07:16:47 PMI am able to imagine an instance when God thought, "If everyone has the ability to take care of himself, and does so, then everyone will be taken care of", and then further down the line realizing that that wasn't a workable solution after all. I don't know why it should be so hard for you to accept that God may have done such a thing. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that the passage was only about a sentence long, something like ... "All That Is considered selfishness once as the environment for the universe, but abandoned it because ...". In other words, I think it was a short comment by Seth, not a long passage.
Caleb Writes: I am able to imagine an instance when God thought, "If everyone has the ability to take care of himself, and does so, then everyone will be taken care of", and then further down the line realizing that that wasn't a workable solution after all. I don't know why it should be so hard for you to accept that God may have done such a thing.
Barrie Responds: You may be able to imagine that. I can imagine a million different things about God and/or gods...good, bad and ugly...but imagining these things doesn't make them a part of the Seth material.
As I said, I recall nothing in the Seth material close to what you say here. I have gone out of my way to research anything close to what you say. I have not found it. Also, what you say does not even fit the Seth material.
It is your reasoning that is difficult to accept because it is so foreign to the Seth material.
For example, this is what Seth said about selfishness:
Seth (ESP Class, 2-12-74): Class Transcript: "After discussion of Seth's remarks, Andy spoke of 'desire' and more specifically of "selfish desire."
Seth commented: "I am here because I selfishly desire to be here. My being exists through the ages because I selfishly desire that it shall be so, and you sit before me because you selfishly desire that it shall be so, and so there is nothing wrong with your desires. And there is no god – using whatever concepts you want to be – there is no All That Is that is not filled with the desire of being, that is not because it desires to be. You cannot annihilate desire."
Class Transcript: "Andy asked about "self-less" desire."
Seth: "There is no self-less desire! How can there be a desire not connected with the self? You are taking it for granted because of your definition now, that your desires, or mankind's desires, must be wrong and that your selfish desire must be destructive and work against others. But your desires, if followed, will be like the desires – if you will forgive me – of the flower that selfishly wants to exist and is. And in fulfilling that desire, it brings joy and vitality to others.
"There is no All That Is, there is no consciousness in the known universe, or in the unknown universe, that does not possess the knowledge of itself; that does not follow its selfish desires. Now, it is only because of the connotations placed upon the word "selfish" that you find contradiction. For left alone, your selfish desires are those of vitality and creativity, and they bring joy and creativity that all will recognize and observe.
"Your selfish desires are good. They are the desires of a self, born out of the glory of All That Is, and therefore those desires are good."
Barrie Comments: I can't find a way that your comments about selfishness even FIT IN with the Seth material, let alone actually IN the material. Maybe you read something ELSE that said these things about selfishness, and remember it as if Seth had said it.
Caleb Continues: Indeed, I'm pretty sure that the passage was only about a sentence long, something like ... "All That Is considered selfishness once as the environment for the universe, but abandoned it because ...". In other words, I think it was a short comment by Seth, not a long passage.
Barrie Comments: Your paraphrase doesn't sound like anything Seth would say or even his or Jane's lexicon. If I find anything close to it, I'll let you and everyone know.
This is the language and vocabulary on love, existence and nature of the universe (CAPS added for emphasis only:
SETH (Seth Class April 13, 1971): "The innate LOVE within you, that you are often too embarrassed to express...forms the planet that you know, the physical bodies that you inhabit, the seasons and the reality in which you presently have your existence...LOVE--is the basis for any reality that any consciousness knows. If it would not for LOVE, then I would not be here and if it were not for LOVE, you would not have the planet that you know...All consciousness of whatever extent feels LOVE though it may not know the verbal designation...for that is the basis of all existence."
Seth (ESP Class, 5-21-74): "When you follow your own nature, you automatically feel for the needs of others. You automatically feel when you are joyful and free, and when you are having fun, you feel your oneness with all other creatures of the universe, and you know your place in All That Is. And when you are yourself, others look upon you with awe and joy and understanding, and you look the same upon them. And you help every other creature that shares with you the framework of this earth. You do not have to worry about helping others, for your very existence is a help and a guide to them. They recognize the joy of being in your existence, and they respond as you do to a sunny day, or to a flower.
Seth (Session 673): "The natural force of LOVE is everywhere within you, and the normal methods of communication are always meant to bring you in greater contact with your fellow creatures."
Seth (Session 769): "LOVE has a biological as well as a spiritual basis... that forms the basis of ALL life..."
Seth (Session 770): "You are born knowing that you possess a unique, intimate sense of being that is itself, and that seeks its own fulfillment, and the fulfillment of others. You are born seeking the actualization of the ideal. You are born seeking to add value to the quality of life, to add characteristics, energies, abilities to a life that only you can individually contribute to the world, and to attain a state of Being that is uniquely yours, while adding to the value fulfillment of the world. All of these qualities and attributes are given you by natural law."
Seth (Session 770): "LOVE is a biological necessity, a force operating to one degree or another in all biological life. Without LOVE there is no physical commitment to life--no psychic hold."
Seth (Session 774): "The emotion of LOVE brings you closest to an understanding of the nature of All-That-Is. LOVE incites dedication, commitment. It specifies. You cannot, therefore, honestly insist that you LOVE humanity and all people equally if you do not LOVE one other person. If you do not LOVE yourself, it is quite difficult to LOVE another."
Seth (Session 776): "Basically, LOVE and creativity are synonymous. LOVE exists without an object. It is the impetus by which all being becomes manifest...I said that the language of LOVE was the one basic language, and I mean that quite literally. Man LOVED nature, identified with its many parts, and added to his own sense of being by joining into its power and identifying with its force. It is not so much that he personified the elements of nature as that he threw his personality into its elements and rode them, so to speak. As mentioned LOVE incites the desire to know, explore, and communicate with the BELOVED; so language began as man tried to express his LOVE for the natural world."
Seth (Session 792): "Love exists without an object. It is the impetus by which all being becomes manifest."
Seth (Session 862): "You were born with an in-built recognition of your own goodness. You were born with an inner recognition of your rightness in the universe...These assumptions are the basis of what I call natural law. You are born LOVING. You are born compassionate...Those attributes also belong to natural law."
Seth (Session 897): "In a manner of speaking, your universe and all others spring from a dimension that is the creative source for all realities--a basic dream universe, so to speak, a divine psychological bed where subjective being is sparked, illuminated, stimulated, pierced, by its own infinite desire for creativity. The source of its power is so great that its imaginings become worlds, but it is endowed with a creativity of such splendor that it seeks the finest fulfillment, for even the smallest of its thoughts and all of its potentials are directed with a good intent that is literally beyond all imagining.
"That good intent is apparent within your world. It is obvious in the cooperative ventures that unite say, the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms, the relationship of bee to flower.
"And your beliefs to the contrary, YOU HAVE CLOSED YOUR MINDS TO MAN'S COOPERATIVE NATURE, TO HIS INNATE DESIRE FOR FELLOWSHIP, HIS NATURAL BENT FOR TAKING CARE OF OTHERS, AND FOR ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR."
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 19, 2021, 08:46:44 PM.
Caleb, I"m not requesting a debate. I was asking what I wrote that prompted you to say that I am putting my slant on the Seth material. Have you no idea what prompted you? You are ENTITLED to say and believe it. I am curious as to what prompted it? Was it about learning those two things and leaving the human race behind, so to speak? Or what? You must know enough about yourself to know why you wrote something. Again, I'm not trying to or wanting to debate you. I am trying to discuss what is in the Seth material or not.
Quote from: barrie on November 19, 2021, 07:37:58 AMBarrie Comments: Hi Caleb, I do not recall Seth saying God experimented with selfishness.
barrie, it seems to me that the "primary cosmic dilemma" of All That Is could be interpreted as "experimenting with selfishness". Of course we are talking about a topic which is beyond the human intellect.
"Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means. In his massive imagination, he understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth. He saw then an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means.
This was indeed in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.
Now had he not solved it, All That Is in ways that cannot be understood, would have faced insanity, and there would have been literally a reality without reason, and a universe run wild." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 9 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)
Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/5WqfICK
The mind boggles when one thinks of All That Is facing insanity. I suppose selfishness in a very powerful person could be a cause of insanity. Hitler was probably insane at the end, taking bucketfuls of drugs.
Quote from: Sena on November 19, 2021, 10:15:22 PMCaleb, I think what it means is that if I wish to worship God, I need to worship myself, but probably worship is not necessary in pantheism. The great cathedrals and temples like Angkor Wat are for the glory of the builders.
I doubt that God wants to be worshipped. I remember Seth saying that God longs for his creations, and his creations long for God (ATI).
Barrie, I read part of what you wrote and then stopped. The fact that you don't recollect Seth saying what I remember him saying doesn't mean that he didn't say it.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in being drawn into an argument. The fact that Seth talked constantly about love doesn't mean that God didn't, for a moment, experiment with a different type of universe. Remember, God is learning too.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 19, 2021, 07:16:47 PMOne wants to think of God (ATI) as perfect, but as you said, God is evolving. I am able to imagine an instance when God thought, "If everyone has the ability to take care of himself, and does so, then everyone will be taken care of", and then further down the line realizing that that wasn't a workable solution after all.
It's good to get away from the delusion of Christian theology that God is perfect. A lot of nonsense is written about perfect goodness:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perfect-goodness/
Sena, as I recollect it, I don't think that Seth was saying that God considered selfishness in a moment of insanity. As I recollect it, it was just a brief comment that God had considered -- actually, briefly tried -- selfishness as the (I don't know what word to use -- posture, guidance, environment?) for the universe, but then decided that it didn't work. It's possible that my memory is faulty, but to me it makes perfect sense, as in that adage that I quoted: "If everyone sweeps his own doorstep, the whole world will be clean". I think that Barrie's ideas about ATI are a little rigid. I recall Seth also saying that God applied Descartes's test to himself, obviously early in God's development: "I think, therefore I am." I suppose I could be wrong about that too. I need to get my Seth books out.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 19, 2021, 11:13:45 PMI doubt that God wants to be worshipped. I remember Seth saying that God longs for his creations, and his creations long for God (ATI).
Barrie, I read part of what you wrote and then stopped. The fact that you don't recollect Seth saying what I remember him saying doesn't mean that he didn't say it.
Caleb, You are not even responding to what I wrote. Sena wrote about worshipping God. Not me. I don't believe that God is to be worshiped. I believe no one or thing is to be worshiped.
Obviously, because I don't remember him saying it doesn't me Seth didn't say it. THAT is why I have been doing research on it--and can find nothing. THAT is why I said that IF I find something I would let you and everyone know.
But I added that the content of what you remember seems very unSethlike...and I gave quotes to support that.
I gave a quote to show how Seth sees "selfishness" in a positive way as well.
So, you have no idea why you said that I slant the Seth material? You seem to have no desire to discuss the Seth material...but only state memories of it with no desire to explore what you say.
Again, I do not wish a debate with you. I do enjoy DISCUSSIONS about what Seth actually said.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 19, 2021, 11:13:45 PMBarrie, I read part of what you wrote and then stopped.
So, Caleb, you didn't even read what I wrote and yet form opinions on it? Do you even remember anything I wrote that you read? Do you know what motivated you to stop? Is this how you "read" the Seth material?
I guess you really don't enjoy examining what you say...nor reading what others say.
I know who said what.
Barrie, please stop arguing with me. I'm not interested.
Quote from: Sena on November 19, 2021, 11:02:18 PMbarrie, it seems to me that the "primary cosmic dilemma" of All That Is could be interpreted as "experimenting with selfishness". Of course we are talking about a topic which is beyond the human intellect.
"Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means. In his massive imagination, he understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth. He saw then an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means. This was indeed in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem. Now had he not solved it, All That Is in ways that cannot be understood, would have faced insanity, and there would have been literally a reality without reason, and a universe run wild."
Hi Sena, Sena Writes: it seems to me that the "primary cosmic dilemma" of All That Is could be interpreted as "experimenting with selfishness". Of course we are talking about a topic which is beyond the human intellect.
Barrie Responds: This may or may not be the case. But the example Caleb gave as his memory has little do with this. To remind you...
Caleb Wrote: "God thought, "If everyone has the ability to take care of himself, and does so, then everyone will be taken care of", and then further down the line realizing that that wasn't a workable solution after all. I don't know why it should be so hard for you to accept that God may have done such a thing. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that the passage was only about a sentence long, something like ... "All That Is considered selfishness once as the environment for the universe, but abandoned it because ...". In other words, I think it was a short comment by Seth, not a long passage."
Barrie Comments: So, according to Caleb, ""All That Is considered selfishness once as the environment for the universe, but abandoned it because..." Nothing Caleb said relates even remotely to your excerpt.
But let's examine the quote you give and see if it relates to any of this:
Seth (ES V.9): "Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means.
Barrie Comments: So far, ATI has unspeakable sympathy
Seth Continues: In his massive imagination, he understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework.
Barrie Comments: Within what framework? I guess the framework of his nonphysical imagination.
Seth Continues: Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth.
Barrie Comments: So, there were so many nonphysical probabilities that they needed to be physicalized or made acutal.
Seth Continues: He saw then an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means.
Barrie Comments: Again, all the various probabilities needed to be physicalized. There were so many probabilities multiplying that they could no longer be contained in the nonphysical realm.
Seth Continues: This was indeed in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.
Barrie Responds: The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize...and there were so many growing probabilities that they needed to be physicalized. So, far, I see NOTHING about selfishness. The dilemma has NOTHING to do with wanting to experiment with a selfish universe.
Seth Continues: Now had he not solved it, All That Is in ways that cannot be understood, would have faced insanity, and there would have been literally a reality without reason, and a universe run wild."
Barrie Responds: Seth is saying that if all of these nonphysical probabilities were not physicalized, then ATI would have gone crazy. To use an analogy, when the chick is ready to be born, he cracks the shell or goes nuts trapped in it.
I don't see ANY of this having ANYTHING to do with selfishness in ANY way.
IF God did something that would have resulted in a "reality without reason" – is not a reality of selfishness. And it was something that DID NOT happen anyway. There was no experiment that failed.
Are you saying that God was selfish because he didn't want to go crazy? Even if that was the case, this doesn't mean that God wanted to experiment with a selfish universe.
And Seth said that God's motive was UNSPEAKABLE SYMPATHY.
Sena Comments: The mind boggles when one thinks of All That Is facing insanity. I suppose selfishness in a very powerful person could be a cause of insanity. Hitler was probably insane at the end, taking bucketfuls of drugs.
Barrie Responds: Sena, no offense...but what are you talking about here? Can selfishness cause insanity in powerful person? I doubt it, but so what? What does this have to do with your excerpt? Why are you just inserting "selfishness" here?
Hitler may have been insane...but so what? How does that fit this excerpt you have or what Caleb said about God experimented with a selfish universe?
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 20, 2021, 12:21:53 AMBarrie, please stop arguing with me. I'm not interested.
Hi Caleb, I am not arguing, trying or desiring to argue with you. You wrote about me and I asked you a question about what you wrote--saying you are free to believe as you wish; and I'm also trying to have a fruitful and intelligent discussion about what is or is not in the Seth material.
Yes, Barrie, you are arguing. If you were a more mature person, you would have said to me, "I don't remember Seth saying anything like that. Are you sure?" and I would have said, "Yes, I'm sure. I remember when I read it, it really struck me, and that's why I remembered it" -- and that would have been the end of it. Instead, you are going on and on and on and on and on, first to me and now to Sena. Don't you have ANY self-awareness?
You are within your rights to disbelieve anything that I say. There is no need to have a long discussion about whether or not it is plausible that Seth would have said it.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 20, 2021, 01:02:02 AMes, Barrie, you are arguing. If you were a more mature person, you would have said to me, "I don't remember Seth saying anything like that. Are you sure?" and I would have said, "Yes, I'm sure. I remember when I read it, it really struck me, and that's why I remembered it" -- and that would have been the end of it.
Hi Caleb, Let's address what you say:
Caleb Writes: Yes, Barrie, you are arguing. If you were a more mature person, you would have said to me, "I don't remember Seth saying anything like that. Are you sure?" and I would have said, "Yes, I'm sure. I remember when I read it, it really struck me, and that's why I remembered it" -- and that would have been the end of it.
Barrie Responds: Let's look at what I actually did say. My very first words to you on this topic:
Barrie Had Written: "Hi Caleb, I do not recall Seth saying God experimented with selfishness. Perhaps you can site a more specific source or session. I can't find it in the Seth Material. I do recall Seth saying that people's ideas of God stem from their own psychological ideas about themselves and people. So, a selfish people would imagine a selfish God."
------
So, Barrie's first two sentences: "I do not recall Seth saying God experimented with selfishness. Perhaps you can site a more specific source or session."
Caleb's Suggestion What Barrie Should Have Said: "I don't remember Seth saying anything like that. Are you sure?"
-------
Barrie NOW Comments: To me, it seems that what I actually wrote is pretty much exactly what you suggest I should have written.
Then I went on to explain WHY I believed he did not say it...and I concluded with:
Barrie's last sentence: "So, I never read about this experiment of God being selfish and all that you said which follows. So, if you have a source outside of your memory, please share it."
Barrie NOW Comments: Nothing here seems immature or confrontational.
In the next post I wrote on this topic:
Barrie Had Written: "Well, I certainly do not remember seeing it in the Seth Material, the Early Sessions or any book or class transcript what you remember about God experimenting with being selfish. IF you can't site any source but your memory--at this point--then I would say your memory is faulty in this case."
Then, I went on to do a great deal of research to further our discussion, looking for anything that fit your memory...and I couldn't find it. And I provided Seth quotes to support my contention that Seth probably did not say that for it didn't fit other things he said. Nothing immature here.Just an honest attempt to have a Seth discussion on a Seth board.
Quote from: caleb date=1637396548I remember when I read it, it really struck me, and that's why I remembered it" -- and that would have been the end of it.
Caleb, above you say "I remember when I read it" ...and I found something in my research that seems to be what you may have actually read and be remembering.
THIS is the closest thing I can find in regard to what you say...but it was NOT in a Seth book, altho it uses many of Seth's terms.
This is from the first chapter of a 1989 book written by Kathy Oddenino and published by Joy Publications. The book is called, "Bridges Of Consciousness: Self Discovery In The New Age."
The following is from Chapter One of this book. The chapter is called: "The God Consciousness" and it talks about God and selfishness and watching his new creations:
"In the beginning God created man in His image. God created man as the energy of love and sharing. Man first existed as the energy of thought within the loving and sharing energy of All That Is.
"Man was a thought form. This energy essence was created by All That Is, from the energy of All That Is. All That Is then became the God of His creation. Indeed, as the creator of many energy forces of the same image as Himself, the new energies of thought knew their Father.
"God was pleased with His new creations and He gave each new thought form that He had created the same power that He had, the power of creation.
"At last God did not feel alone. He had created a family in His image with which He could share His world and His love. He had created with full intention and will. God knew and felt the responsibility of His new creation.
"The energy of God knew the energy of being, of learning, of creating. God had learned His lessons in loneliness and solitude. He had come to recognize the power of His energy. He had accepted the responsibility of creating His world. He would be a loving God to His children and to His world.
"As God watched His new energy creations He saw that they did not have the same clear understanding of their power.
"They created without the responsibility of creation. Indeed they created without love and the truth of Being.
"God viewed the behavior of His creations with sadness at times and with joy at times. They were His sons and He nurtured them with love. The power of creation by the energy of thought became a powerful tool in the energy of His many sons. He watched as His sons created with distortion and selfishness.
"God wanted His sons to be responsible for their creations. He wanted them to know their power and their goodness. He wanted them to BE love. He observed with discernment the creation of the negative and the positive. He saw little indication of structure and discipline within the energy streams of His sons."
This is the end of the excerpt above which I believe fits what you have been saying and God and selfishness: Again, it is from the 1989 book written by Kathy Oddenino called, "Bridges Of Consciousness: Self Discovery In The New Age" from Chapter One called "The God Consciousness" --
"As God watched His new energy creations He saw that they did not have the same clear understanding of their power.
"They created without the responsibility of creation. Indeed they created without love and the truth of Being.
"God viewed the behavior of His creations with sadness at times and with joy at times. They were His sons and He nurtured them with love. The power of creation by the energy of thought became a powerful tool in the energy of His many sons. He watched as His sons created with distortion and selfishness.
"God wanted His sons to be responsible for their creations. He wanted them to know their power and their goodness. He wanted them to BE love. He observed with discernment the creation of the negative and the positive. He saw little indication of structure and discipline within the energy streams of His sons."
Barrie, I haven't been reading your posts, but I did scan your last post out of curiosity. I didn't read the book you mentioned.
I'm contemplating whether to put you on Ignore, which would make your posts invisible to me. You obviously have an obsessive personality. If you can't find a way to control that tendency, I'm going to have to block you.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 20, 2021, 05:55:49 AMBarrie, I haven't been reading your posts, but I did scan your last post out of curiosity. I didn't read the book you mentioned.
I'm contemplating whether to put you on Ignore, which would make your posts invisible to me. You obviously have an obsessive personality. If you can't find a way to control that tendency, I'm going to have to block you.
Caleb, You don't know or understand me in the least. I don't care if you ignore or block me. I don't mean this is a bad way, but I am not especially interested in you, no offense. I do care about all people I respond to, tho, or else I wouldn't respond. You are a person who posts on this board like everyone else.
I am interested in exploring the Seth material. You can choose not to participate in a Seth discussion. You don't seem to be interested in that--unless maybe if someone agrees with you or doesn't care if your memory is correct or not.. But by your own admission you don't even know what I write because you haven't been reading my posts. That is your right as well...as it is your right to pretend you know what I write or why.
Perhaps you never had anyone actually pay attention to what you say...or pay attention to the words you write. You see someone listening to what you say as obsessive. Peculiar.
I am curious: Have you NO interest in exploring if Seth actually said what you said? I guess not. I've been searching for it but have come up with nothing close.
Even if you haven't read the book I did quote, does the quote fit in at all with what you have been claiming or remembering about Seth?
By the way, this is called having a discussion.
My two cents.
I don't recall anything about ATI experimenting with a selfish universe, that doesn't mean it isn't somewhere in the materials. My interest in the creation is limited. I enjoyed reading about the three dilemmas of ATI, but my interests are less focused on fine details and more into what I consider the meat of the Seth materials: how we create, the nature of reality, how to utilize this knowledge to improve my life. That's just me.
I did a search at https://findingseth.com/ on "selfish" and did not come up with anything relevant to this discussion. But again, that doesn't mean Seth didn't say something to that effect. There have been times when I try to find a particular quote and have little luck finding it. While I understood the message being conveyed, I've paraphrased the quote in memory and so my words are different than the exact words Seth spoke. No long ago we had a post here where it came up that Seth used the word inoculation more than the word vaccine. There are about twice as many search results for Seth quotes about inoculations than vaccines. I'm sure if Caleb is able to track down what he remembers, he will share it with us.
And Barrie, I understand your passion and desire to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the materials. After all, you are one of Jane's "New York Boys" and Seth's "Our Poet," and have spent the majority of your life focused on Seth. There aren't many people left who have spent as much time living with the Seth materials.
We all have our individual beliefs, definitions of words (that's a big one) and filters and therefore interpret the materials in our own way. I don't mean that's specifically relevant to this discussion—which BTW has headed downhill. I, like most Seth readers, feel I get new or different material each time I re-read the books, as if the books are constantly being rewritten. This could be attributed to having had more exposure to the materials, a deeper understanding, catching something that was missed the first time around due to earlier unfamiliarity with the concepts. But I do remember Seth saying that we create the books. Something else to consider when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong. I had a hard time finding this quote because my mind had paraphrased it and I was searching on the wrong key words. ;)
"You may perhaps argue that the book was manufactured physically, and did not suddenly erupt through Ruburt's skull, already printed and bound. You in turn had to borrow or purchase the book, so you may think, "Surely, I did not create the book, as I created my words." But before we are finished we will see that basically speaking, each of you create the book you hold in your hands, and that your entire physical environment comes as naturally out of your inner mind as words come out of your mouths, and that man forms physical objects as unselfconsciously and as automatically as he forms his own breath."
—SS Chapter 5: Session 523, April 13, 1970
I'll say one more thing on this to Barrie.
I have no interested in litigating everything I say that you don't remember reading, and that's what you were doing. Deb has filled me in on the fact that you are well read in the Seth material and even have some history or some sort of credentials regarding the Material. That's great. But even if you are an expert at a level that I am not, you still need to be able to get to the point in a discussion where you say, "I disagree, but I can't prove otherwise, so I am dropping it." You don't seem to be able to get there.
I remember when I was editing the Wikipedia article about the Material (which has since been mostly destroyed by Christian and atheist editors who found the information threatening), I had written something that I remembered Seth said: that the information he was giving us was given to every generation of human beings (not by him necessarily, but by someone). Another editor added another comment: that Seth imparted the information to us because it was "fun". I remember saying to myself, "Oh, that's interesting; Seth might have said something like that." But I didn't launch into a long debate with the other editor because I couldn't prove that it wasn't true.
Deb, thank you for your balanced point of view. I think that all of us paraphrase the Material in our minds. I certainly do. Once I "get" what Seth is saying, I immediately recast the concept in my own words. I am always talking or writing about it, but I always use my own words. I try to be accurate; but in paraphrasing, it's possible that I may alter the meaning.
As I've said, I need to find the box that has all my Seth books in it and start reading them again. Can I get all the books on Kindle? That might be easier. Are Kindle books searchable?
Barrie, in the future, if I say something you don't agree with, I'm willing to have a SHORT debate on it and then move on, but the debate must be short. And for God's sake, stop referring to yourself in the third person.
Quote from: Deb on November 20, 2021, 01:33:59 PMAnd Barrie, I understand your passion and desire to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the materials.
Hi Deb, Just to be clear, my desire to discover and explore what is actually in the Seth material is
totally removed from my desire to maintain the integrity and authenticity of the material in regard to the "fake Seth" people-by posting what Seth, Jane and Rob said on that issue.
And I know people interpret things differently, etc.
This is not and should not be a me versus anyone situation.
I am just exploring what is actually in the material or not...as I've done since 1972.
I have searched for HOURS using all the material I have available to me...and have found nothing close to what Caleb said.
Could I have missed it somehow? Of course.
Is Caleb free to beleive whatever he wants? Of course.
But based on Caleb's descriptions and paraphrases of what he remembers Seth saying, I believe he is not remembering it correctly because I cannot find anything close to it
AND it also doesn't fit
anything in the Seth material.
Even Seth's concept of selfishness itself--does not fit what Caleb remembers about selfishness and the Seth material. I have previously posted this excerpt in this thread:
Seth on SELFISH Desires and how they are Good. CAPS added for emphasis only.
Seth (ESP Class, 2-12-74): Class Transcript: "After discussion of Seth's remarks, Andy spoke of 'desire' and more specifically of "SELFISH desire."
Seth commented: "I am here because I SELFISHLY desire to be here. My being exists through the ages because I SELFISHLY desire that it shall be so, and you sit before me because you SELFISHLY desire that it shall be so, and so there is nothing wrong with your desires. And there is no god – using whatever concepts you want to be – there is no All That Is that is not filled with the desire of being, that is not because it desires to be. You cannot annihilate desire."
Class Transcript: "Andy asked about "self-less" desire."
Seth: "There is no self-less desire! How can there be a desire not connected with the self? You are taking it for granted because of your definition now, that your desires, or mankind's desires, must be wrong and that your SELFISH desire must be destructive and work against others. But your desires, if followed, will be like the desires – if you will forgive me – of the flower that SELFISHLY wants to exist and is. And in fulfilling that desire, it brings joy and vitality to others.
"There is no All That Is, there is no consciousness in the known universe, or in the unknown universe, that does not possess the knowledge of itself; that does not follow its SELFISH desires.
Now, it is only because of the connotations placed upon the word "SELFISH" that you find contradiction. For left alone, your SELFISH desires are those of vitality and creativity, and they bring joy and creativity that all will recognize and observe.
"Your SELFISH desires are good. They are the desires of a self, born out of the glory of All That Is, and therefore those desires are good."
Barrie Now Comments: So, I do realize certain things are open to interpretation...but because I can't find anything close to it after looking for hours, because Caleb can't recall where he read it and because it doesn't fit the content of the Seth material in context...
ALL I am saying is that I believe Caleb is mistaken and Seth never said that.
This is ALL.
Why this has turned into an alleged argument or anything else--is beyond me.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 20, 2021, 04:18:33 PMBarrie, in the future, if I say something you don't agree with, I'm willing to have a SHORT debate on it and then move on, but the debate must be short. And for God's sake, stop referring to yourself in the third person.
Caleb, I say "Barrie said" or "Barrie Wrote" and "Caleb Writes" or whoever because I learned many years ago that if I write "I Said" or "You said" --who said what--gets completely lost--especially if it gets repasted.
Thru out all my posts--in the actual TEXT of what I say--I NEVER refer to myself in the third person...
But then again, you have said you hardly read my posts.
I have to tell you that you really don't know and understand me at all. Perhaps you project on me.
You seem to be fond of telling how to answer you, how long, when, and now even how to post my citations regarding who said what in a clarifying manner.
You have referred to me as immature and obsessive and who knows what else.
I have referred to you as probably not remembering correctly what Seth said.
Why are you so hostile and/or defensive?
Quote from: Deb on November 20, 2021, 01:33:59 PMBut I do remember Seth saying that we create the books. Something else to consider when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong. I had a hard time finding this quote because my mind had paraphrased it and I was searching on the wrong key words.
Deb, Seth never implied that the Seth material and concepts in the books differ from person to person because they "create the books" -- whatever you mean by that. Yes, we create the physical object of the book--but the material is the material. We find new things in it...even in the same paragraph a day later...
BUT if you are implying "anything goes" concerning what Seth said in his books because "we create the books" -- THEN I have to strongly disagree. That idea renders the materials and the books meaningless.
Joe Smith says that he remembers that Seth said we only
SOMETIMES create our own reality; and that
SOMETIMES when we die it actually IS the end...and God first created a
selfish universe...that he had to do over.
These things cannot be explained away as, "Well, that's what Joe created in his book to read. And there is actually no one body of work called the Seth material because we all make it up as we create the books."
ALL of my above examples CAN be explained as someone not remembering correctly what he or she read. Misremembering and even misinterpreting--which DOES happen as well--are not crimes--but rather things to DISCUSS.
Deb, so, what is the point you are trying to make?
Quote from: Deb on November 20, 2021, 01:33:59 PMSomething else to consider when trying to decide who is right and who is wrong. I had a hard time finding this quote because my mind had paraphrased it and I was searching on the wrong key words.
Hi Deb, This is not an issue of who is right or wrong. It is a discussion about
what is in or not in the Seth material. If I'm wrong or mistaken,
that is a GOOD thing.
I'd be HAPPY to find out I was wrong just as much if I found I that I was correct.
To learn something new or that I was mistaken is a GOOD thing. I always welcome it when it happens because it is
crucial to learning and growth. And it's also good to realize if I am correct about something.
And about finding anything
close to Caleb's memory--I did
MANY searches taking hours--using
many different words, phrases and angles to try to find it or anything close to it--anywhere--and I couldn't.
So I don't believe it is not in the material. May it show up? Maybe. But regardless of what is or is not in the material--
this is no competition.
Four posts in a row, Barrie, all arguing the similar points. Why do you feel the need to keep arguing and debating? We know what I believe. We know what you believe. We know what Deb believes. Why can't we leave it at that, at least for the moment?
You obviously feel threatened in some way. You need to figure that out. You don't OWN the Seth material. When someone has a wrong idea about it (if indeed I do), it doesn't mean your copyright has been violated.
I did read what you said about selfishness, and it sounds like the same selfishness that I'm talking about. It is because selfishness has a positive component that God decided (or may have decided) to make it the tenor of the universe for a while. So I don't see a huge contradiction. (Now, please don't post three or four paragraphs explaining why ATI would or wouldn't have done such a thing. There's no need for that because I already know you disagree with me.)
If you and I are going to be exchanging comments on this forum, you need to be more concise.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 20, 2021, 09:05:52 PMFour posts in a row, Barrie, all arguing the same point. Why do you feel the need to keep arguing and debating? We know what I believe. We know what you believe. We know what Deb believes. Why can't we leave it at that, at least for the moment?
You obviously feel threatened in some way. You need to figure that out. You don't OWN the Seth material. When someone has a wrong idea about it (if indeed I do), it doesn't mean your copyright has been violated.
I did read what you said about selfishness, and it sounds like the same selfishness that I'm talking about. It is because selfishness has a positive component that God decided (or may have decided) to make it the tenor of the universe for a while. So I don't see a huge contradiction. (Now, please don't post three or four paragraphs explaining why ATI would or wouldn't have done such a thing. There's no need for that because I already know you disagree with me.)
If you and I are going to be exchanging comments on this forum, you need to be more concise.
Caleb, I actually have made different points. But as you described yourself, you don't even read my posts--yet you do feel the "compulsion" to be very judgemental and give me instructions on THEM while avoiding t4for the most part to discuss Seth. .
This I will repeat: You don't know me or understand me at all. On top of that you seem to be very controlling. So be it. That is you. Maybe eventually you'll stop telling me what I need to do, what I am doing wrong, and how I am threatened, etc.
I do not feel threatened one iota in this thread or any other of the thousands of threads I have been on.
Everything you say about me, copyrights, owning the material--is silly and absurd.
I do not believe you read my posts because I have explained this is not me vs anyone--and that
I am as happy to be proven wrong as to be proven right.
And finally to actually discuss what you said about God creating a selfish universe and then having to redo it. IF being selfish was good, as Seth says, then there'd be no reason to redo it.
Also, I have yet to find anything close to what you actually said in the material. That is not a big deal. But it is a fact.
The type of "selfishness" Seth talks about IS the tenor of the universe right now...and always was.
Seth (ESP Class, 2-12-74):
"Your SELFISH desires are good. They are the desires of a self, born out of the glory of All That Is, and therefore those desires are good."
You are still making arguments that you have already made. This is the part of you that is obsessive. You don't need to say something a dozen times.
I think that Seth understood that selfishness can be both good and bad, so I doubt that Seth was giving selfishness his whole-hearted endorsement, regardless of what he said in one session.
Barrie and Caleb,
you guys are brilliant and treasure troves of fascinating stuff.
I encourage both of you, to have good vibes.
be considerate of the other's feelings.
say things to make each other feel good.
play nice.
you catch more flies with honey and all that is, I meant jazz, all that jazz. :)
Barrie, I honor and respect and love all the good you have done.
you are an amazing and such a good man.
Caleb, I have read some of your posts. brilliant. love it.
peace, you guys.
and thank you Deb,, for making this soooo wonderful forum.
thank you for your goodness and your patience and wisdom and kindness,
Charlie
Quote from: barrie on November 20, 2021, 12:46:33 AMSeth Continues: This was indeed in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.
Barrie Responds: The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize...and there were so many growing probabilities that they needed to be physicalized. So, far, I see NOTHING about selfishness. The dilemma has NOTHING to do with wanting to experiment with a selfish universe.
Seth Continues: Now had he not solved it, All That Is in ways that cannot be understood, would have faced insanity, and there would have been literally a reality without reason, and a universe run wild."
Barrie Responds: Seth is saying that if all of these nonphysical probabilities were not physicalized, then ATI would have gone crazy. To use an analogy, when the chick is ready to be born, he cracks the shell or goes nuts trapped in it.
Barrie and Caleb,
Thanks to Caleb for initiating this interesting discussion. The problem is that Seth was not very clear about what the "primary cosmic dilemma" of All That Is was.
Barrie, to my knowledge Seth did not actually say that "The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize".
As Seth is not very clear, I would like to turn to William James. I have not read James's book "A Pluralistic Universe", but there is a useful summary here:
https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/756
What I understand is that according to James there are two kinds of pantheism, the monistic variety and the pluralistic variety. The primary cosmic dilemma may have been the choice between the two kinds of pantheism.
Barrie, I take your point that every consciousness has always existed, but All That Is may have had a choice between every consciousness developing independently, or every consciousness developing according to a uniform "monistic" model.
A quote from the article (see attached pdf):
QuoteIn this book, in many ways James argues against absolute monism and explains his
promotion of Pluralism, very well orchestrating the rhythm of partes destruens and pars
construens in his discourse. His strategy is to make his audience more and more
convinced about the insufficiency of idealism, as to give them concrete consistency of
the pluralistic alternative. He starts to notice that the idealistic Weltanschauung cannot
fully satisfy our need of feeling at home in the world, and it is this necessary to justify
James's attempt to support and encourage other possible choices. In fact, although
empiricism and rationalism have – in a pantheistic sense – a spiritualistic vision in
common, there is a fundamental discordance between these two philosophical and
temperamental portraits.
Quote from: barrie on November 20, 2021, 09:29:43 PMSeth (ESP Class, 2-12-74): "Your SELFISH desires are good. They are the desires of a self, born out of the glory of All That Is, and therefore those desires are good."
Barrie, thanks for finding this quote in praise of selfish desires.
Sena, there is definitely a kind of selfishness which is good, and in the quotes posted by Barrie, I think Seth was giving us those. But the word "selfishness" also applies to criminals and rapists and such. Good people will tend to be selfish in a productive way. Bad people will not. Now, I understand that Seth explained that good and bad are inaccurate concepts, but you have to admit that someone who considers only his own needs is not being selfish in a good way. It all depends on how much awareness you have of the results of your actions.
Perhaps I am saying this because I watch a lot of true-crime TV shows, and it is horrifying the things that people do, just horrifying. (Mostly men doing them, I might add.)
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 21, 2021, 04:06:34 PMSena, there is definitely a kind of selfishness which is good, and in the quotes posted by Barrie, I think Seth was giving us those. But the word "selfishness" also applies to criminals and rapists and such.
Caleb. I don't think we are in position to judge All That Is. We can only imagine how All That Is considered the pros and cons of Monism versus Pluralism. If She had opted for Monism there would have been no evil on Earth, no Hitler. With Monism, all consciousnesses would have been uniformly dull. I can imagine people saying, like our children, "I am bored."
Quote from: Sena on November 21, 2021, 09:41:20 PMCaleb. I don't think we are in position to judge All That Is. We can only imagine how All That Is considered the pros and cons of Monism versus Pluralism. If She had opted for Monism there would have been no evil on Earth, no Hitler. With Monism, all consciousnesses would have been uniformly dull. I can imagine people saying, like our children, "I am bored."
I'm not sure how I may have judged God, but I certainly think we are free to do so if we want to.
I'm just not familiar enough with monism and pluralism to be able to comment. But didn't Seth say that ATI, and thus everything in existence, is composed of the same element? That element is alive, however, which makes all the different.
This is an area where my memory of the Material is a little weak. Isn't ATI composed of CUs? Or is it EEUs? I need to read up on that.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 22, 2021, 03:20:28 AMIsn't ATI composed of CUs? Or is it EEUs? I need to read up on that.
Well, if All That Is is literally "all that is", then everything is included, and that seems to be how Seth sees it:
"These CU's can operate as separate entities, as identities, or they can flow together in a vast, harmonious wave of activity, as a force. Period. Actually, units of consciousness operate in both ways all of the time. No identity, once "formed," is ever annihilated, for its existence is indelibly a part of "the entire wave of consciousness to which it belongs."
(Pause at 9:04, one of many.) Each "particleized" unit, however, rides the continual thrust set up by fields of consciousness, in which wave and particle both belong. Each particleized unit of consciousness contains within it inherently the knowledge of all other such particles—for at other levels, again, the units are operating as waves. Basically the units move faster than light,2 slowing down, in your terms, to form matter. (Pause.) These units can be considered, again, as entities or as forces, and they can operate as either.
Metaphysically, they can be thought of as the point at which All That Is acts to form [your] world—the immediate contact of a never-ending creative inspiration, coming into mental focus, the metamorphosis of certainly divine origin that brings the physical world into existence from the greater reality of divine fact. Scientifically, again, the units can be thought of as building blocks of matter."
—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 889, December 17, 1979
Pantheism means God is in everything, so God is in CUs as well as in EEs, but it may not be correct to say that God is "composed" of CUs.
Thank you for that information, Sena. How do CUs related to EEUs?
ATI, the universe and our world must be "composed" of something. I thought it was one of the energy types that Seth described.
From what I have read so far on this forum, CUs are not what I thought they were.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 22, 2021, 04:53:37 AMFrom what I have read so far on this forum, CUs are not what I thought they were.
It is incorrect to describe CUs as "particles" because CUs are pre=physical. As for EE units, I'll need to go back to the books.
A particle doesn't necessarily mean physical; it just means that the energy that composes the universe comes in individual units, instead of, say, a wave, as in quantum mechanics.
Shall I start a new thread? I was intending to start one on CUs and EEUs.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 22, 2021, 05:44:38 AMShall I start a new thread? I was intending to start one on CUs and EEUs.
I say go for it! I could use a review on CUs and EEs, and it would also be an opportunity for me to examine what energy is.
Tom Campbell is extensively operating with the concept of individuated units of consciousness. I think ´ICU´s in his terminology. It would be worth reading his materials as he is familiar with the Seth material as well. I had a private session with Bashar, asking about the ´CU´s of Seth, the ´death of atoms` (a concept Robert Butts did regret not to have clarified further, and ´coordinate points´.
According to Bashar, Seth´s CUs are just smaller units composing each and everything (smaller than subatomic particles). According to him, everything is created by one single unit, the Prime Radiant, which is travelling ´at infinite speed´and thus everywhere at the same time. Where it is ´criss-crossing´- itself it does form matter. The more often this criss-crossing occurs, the denser the matter which is created at this point. There are universes which are much denser than ours (Bashar).
According to Tom Campbell, reality is virtual. There is nothing smaller than one Planck lenght. Reality (what we perceive as reality) is constantly being recreated at the rate of Planck time. (Planck time is the time it takes light to pass one Planck lenght. If you imagine one Planck lenght the size of one millimeter, a real millimeter would be larger than the visible universe). According to Tom Campbell the universe is pixelated at the level of Planck-lenght and re-created at the rate of Planck time.
According to the Kris Chronicles the universe is pixelated. And the pixels are the CUs.
Quote from: Tob on November 23, 2021, 04:03:13 AMAccording to
According to Barrie: Is the universe a computer simulation, any type of simulation and/or hologram? I say no. Is mind control involved—in which alien beings instill in us the images that we then see? I, again, say no.
As Seth and Seth2 have explained, and I agree, CONSCIOUSNESS is behind the creation of physical reality in the "first" place even tho there is NO "FIRST" PLACE because all of this happens outside of linear time.
All objects and all of physical reality naturally fluctuate, flicker or blink in and out of physical reality each instant all the time because THAT is part of the process of reality creation and conjuring up objects for out five senses to see, use and navigate with on the physical plane.
It is true, that like a computer program or hologram, physical reality is a reality of appearances which flicker. This means that things appear to be one way based on our five senses, but they are also something else; AND there ARE more expansive explanations of these things existing within the nonphysical realm—and not with some vast computer on some alien's galaxy desk.
As an analogy; a table appears solid to the five senses via classic science, but according to quantum science it is not solid at all—and it is not even a table. BOTH ARE TRUE—and there is NO CONTRADICTION—and one is NOT truer than the other.
This is a perfect description of the nature of our physical reality. It is two things at once—physical and non-physical—and there is no contradiction—and one is NOT truer than the other. And no grand computer need apply. It's just that the right questions concerning consciousness and its quantum connections have just rarely been asked.
Each instant on a personal, individual level consciousness is ALSO the MECHANISM of reality creation—via telepathic agreement.
This means that IN EACH MOMENT--ALL OF US literally create everything around us: the objects and bodies we see, the landscapes, etc--EVERYTHING—all via telepathic agreement.
AND this MECHANISM of conjuring up reality each instant produces a flickering or blinking effect as each object flickers in and out of physical reality as we conjure it up so QUICKLY that our five senses don't notice.
THIS WOULD ALSO HOLD TRUE WITH EVERY UFO SIGHTING, ENCOUNTER, ABDUCTION, AND SO FORTH. And in this process of conscious reality creation, NO objects are actually ever solid and they are NEVER always there--BUT RATHER they continuously flicker or blink on & off—each instant--as we create them, CONJURE THEM UP AND BACK DOWN again, to speak, OUT of physical reality—and then back in—over and over for eternity.
And if TRUE, THEN this MEANS that the universe is NOT a computer simulation or a holograph—but a NATURAL FLICKERING LIVING and ONGOING adventure.
So, humans conjure up all the objects in physical reality in this flickering manner that some people you speak to may notice. Objects may always be flicking "in and out" of reality so quickly each instant—that most never notice—for to the five senses the objects appear to always be here.
But some may be able to see this flickering...and it may have nothing at all to do with holographic projections or computer simulations—but with the natural method of reality creation. BUT the APPEARANCE of observing this flickering would be identical to what you define and identify as holographic projections and computer simulations. So, the question would be: What is causing the flickering?
The flicker or fluctuation IS a physical occurrence that happens so quickly most people cannot ever see it—and to our five senses to always appears that everything is always solidly here. But sometimes, people can notice the flicker or blinking. This may occur in some altered state or even under some drugs like LSD.
And, so, even when alien beings appear to witnesses, it also may be in cooperation and/or collaboration with these creatures on telepathic and subconscious levels—that do not involve mind control at all. AND these bodies would also fluctuate or flicker as the witnesses create them for their five senses to see and deal with.
And when some people DO see this natural flickering or blinking, their PERSONAL proud-state-of-the-art-high-tech-cutting-edge-cyber-sci-fi-high-strangeness BELIEFS--DICTATE to them that this flickering must be some alien or majestic colossal computer simulation, program, or holographic universe. And THAT explains why they keep seeing Keanu Reeves cartwheeling in the corner of their eyes as they fall asleep.
But it IS the filter of their and our beliefs that dictate to each one of us how we define, explain and/or categorize the reality we see. Thus, to the current-minded technological steeped society of today, these folks come to the conclusion that all this blinking and flickering must be a hologram or computer simulation which also blinks and flickers.
Yet, I contend that this is actually just the natural fluctuation, flicker and/or blink of consciousness creating reality. And what seems to be a computer simulation is what the actual process of reality creation looks look like.
The universe is NOT a computer simulation. But rather, it is a CONSCIOUSNESS STIMULATION which is what reality is—and it blinks and flickers in and out physical reality each instant that normally, the five senses never notice. It is not a hologram. It is our HOME.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 22, 2021, 03:20:28 AMIsn't ATI composed of CUs? Or is it EEUs? I need to read up on that.
Hi Everone, I would say that All That Is CREATES CUs and EEUs...and is not involved with physical reality on the level of CUs and EEUs.
Quote from: Sena on November 21, 2021, 08:09:51 AMBarrie, thanks for finding this quote in praise of selfish desires.
Sena, You're welcome.
Quote from: Sena on November 21, 2021, 07:49:39 AMBarrie, to my knowledge Seth did not actually say that "The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize".
Hi Sena, Here is what Seth said and what I paraphrased as "The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize..." (Bold & CAPS added for emphasis only):
Seth (Session 427): "All That Is did exist, itself, obviously in a state of being, but in a state in which it could not find expression for its own being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this "period" in quotes, of contracted yearning, that All That Is could concentrate its energy sufficiently enough to
create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it."Barrie Comments: So, ATI wanted to "create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it."
Seth Continues: "...
At first, in your terms, all of probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within consciousness of All That Is. Later the unspecified nature of these "dreams," in quotes, grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became recognizable one from the other, until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is.
And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more and more attention to his own dreams."
Barrie Comments: So, these "nebulous dreams" are nonphysical...physical reality was not yet created...but ATI kept paying more and more attention to his own dreams.
Seth Continues: "He then purposely gave these more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not as yet created from himself.
He gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be ACTUAL, so there was this final breaking-through that was still necessary.
Barrie Comments: I mean Seth says outright that ATI "
gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be ACTUAL..."
To me, if these individuals where in
DREAMS and they "
yearned to be ACTUAL" – it means that they yearned to be
PHYSICAL...as opposed to remaining in nebulous dreams.
Seth Continues:
Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it.
They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means.Barrie Comments: So ATI "
loved" all these dream beings who had
"consciousness" before the "beginning" or before physical reality was created. These conscious beings greatly wanted to be "
released into actuality" or to be
MADE PHYSICAL. And ATI, with "
unspeakable sympathy"—wanted to help them become physical.
Seth Continues: "In his massive imagination, he understood the
cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework.
Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth."
Barrie Comments: Again, clearly, "
actuality" -- being made
PHYSICAL or being
PHYSICALIZED as opposed to remaining in detailed dream state--was
needed for these dream consciousness beings "
to be given birth."
Seth Continues: "He saw then an
infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means.Barrie Comments: To me, this is very clear: These
probable, conscious beings were "
locked within" detailed ATI dreams—and so ATI had to find a "
means" to
PHYSICALIZE them or make them PHYSICAL—give them ACTUALITY as opposed to remaining
NONPHYSICAL in detailed dreams.
Seth Continues: "
THIS WAS INDEED IN YOUR TERMS A PRIMARY COSMIC DILEMMA (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.
Barrie Comments: I don't think Seth could be more clear—the "
COSMIC DILEMMA" was to
PHYSICALIZE or
NOT PHYSICALIZE...give them
actuality or have them
remain in the dream state.
Seth Continues: "...
The pressure, in one way, came from two sources; from the conscious (underlined) but still probable individual selves who found themselves alive in a God's dream, and from the God who yearned to release them."
Barrie Comments: Again, I see total clarity: "
Probable individual selves... alive in a God's dream," and "
God who yearned to release them..." From where and to where? Release them from God's dream into actualization or physical reality—or, in other words,
PHYSICALIZE them.
Seth Continues:
This then is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt. He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed. The means then came to him.
He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream.Barrie Comments: Again THIS is the COSMIC DILEMMA: To
PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE and remain
NONPHYSICAL.
The answer: PHYSICALIZE – "He MUST release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream."
Seth Continues: "To do so would give them
actuality."
Barrie Comments: Again, clearly, to "
release the creatures...from his dream" means to
PHYSICALIZE them, make the
PHYSICAL, or, in other words, "g
ive them actuality" – as opposed to
remaining in the dream state.
Seth Continues: However it also meant "losing", in quotes, a portion of his own consciousness, for it was within that portion that
they were held in bondage. All That Is had to let go. While he thought of these individuals as his creations, he held them as part of himself and refused their actuality.
Barrie Comments: Here's more details of the
COSMIC DILEMMA: IF he
PHYSICALIZED them...they would be free or no longer "held in bondage" in his dream.
BUT while in his dream, they were still totally a "
part of himself" and so...what to do? "
Refuse" to PHYSICALIZE them and keep them
NONPHYSICAL in his dream—or release them from this "
bondage" and make them physical or
PHYSICALIZE them?
Seth Continues: To let them go was to
lose that portion of himself that had created them. Already he could scarcely keep up with the myriad probabilities that began to emerge from each separate consciousness.
With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free. The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation.
Barrie Comments: The
COSMIC DILEMMA has been resolved: "
With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free."
So, I do believe that my statement, "
The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize..." –
TOTALLY CORRECT altho those two terms were not used.
I have learned that paraphrasing is an excellent learning method—to see for yourself that you understand something. We often do this conversation. We may say, "So let me get this straight, you WANT me to ask you for lunch?" – when the person didn't actually use those words.
Quote from: barrie on November 23, 2021, 09:07:00 AMSeth Continues: To let them go was to lose that portion of himself that had created them.
This and similar statements sounds to me that Seth is saying that we are not part of All That Is.
Quote from: barrie on November 23, 2021, 09:07:00 AMBarrie Comments: Again, clearly, to "release the creatures...from his dream" means to PHYSICALIZE them, make the PHYSICAL, or, in other words, "give them actuality"
This says that in order for us to have independence from his dream, we have to be physical. But physicality is not the only reality in which we have that independence, given that Seth says that there are numerous types of reality that consciousness can play in. The after-death or "between lives" reality presumably allows independent consciousness to have actuality. In my mind, actuality does not equal physicality.
Now, Barrie, to address your various comments regarding the holographic model and comments about flickering, I see no contradiction. Michael Talbot, author of
The Holographic Universe, was a Seth reader, and in fact had a chapter about Seth in his previous book. The holographic universe theory does not require that the universe be a computer simulation, which seems to be your impression. Also, I agree completely with Tob's quote below of Campbell except for the misleading use of the word "virtual". Given that there are multiple types of reality, all are equally real. For instance, Seth says that dream reality is as real as waking reality. If physical reality is "virtual", then all realities are virtual. That can make sense if one considers the core reality as being consciousness and that consciousness choosing from among the many realities available in which to play. One reason that I agree with Campbell is that I came to exactly the same realizations years ago from reading Seth. The winking on and off of physical reality is far too fast (at Planck time) to be perceived. The flickering that you speak of must have different explanations.
Quote from: Tob on November 23, 2021, 04:03:13 AMAccording to Tom Campbell, reality is virtual. There is nothing smaller than one Planck length. Reality (what we perceive as reality) is constantly being recreated at the rate of Planck time. (Planck time is the time it takes light to pass one Planck length. If you imagine one Planck length the size of one millimeter, a real millimeter would be larger than the visible universe). According to Tom Campbell the universe is pixelated at the level of Planck-length and re-created at the rate of Planck time.
According to the Kris Chronicles the universe is pixelated. And the pixels are the CUs.
Barrie, I'm sorry to be coming at you with another criticism, but posting Seth's actual words and then reposting what he said in YOUR words is not helpful. Seth wasn't speaking a foreign language that has to be interpreted. In fact, one of the wonderful things about the Material is that Seth spoke it clearly in excellent English, unlike, say, Edgar Cayce. It would seem that Seth's clarity is due largely in part of Jane Roberts, whose mind was very analytical.
MY interpretation of Seth's statements that you quote above is NOT that he sought to make his dreams PHYSICAL, but that he sought to ACTUALIZE his dreams. Actualizing doesn't necessarily mean physicalizing. My impression from the Material is that a majority of universes within the multiverse are probably nonphysical.
One of the difficulties in pinning down this point is that physicality exists on a scale of intensity. Thus, our waking body is more physical than our astral body, which is why the astral body can move through objects (or so I've heard), but the astral body is nonetheless physical too, though at a lower "pitch".
But my main message to you is that the constant reinterpreting of Seth's words isn't needed. Let us decide for ourselves what he is saying.
Now, I'm going to pick up with my own ideas.
As Barrie quoted above, Seth said: "To let them go was to lose that portion of himself that had created them. Already he could scarcely keep up with the myriad probabilities that began to emerge from each separate consciousness. With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free. The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation."
You'll notice that Seth used the word "creation". What I believe is that Seth, in these passages, is giving us a more accurate version of the Christian creation. The Christians imagine that God simply willed the physical universe into existence, and that the resulting universe became independent of God. Seth's story is more nuanced. What happened in the creation as Seth describes it is that ATI found a way to externalize his dreams so that they became self-actualizing and, essentially, independent and "free" of ATI's control. ATI gave his dreams self-determination, but ATI remains intricately entwined with them. God's psychic energy (and therefore consciousness) permeates all of existence, which is why Seth insisted that everything is part of ATI. Somehow, ATI remains the center, or the nexus, or the psychic engine of the universe. What changed during the creation was our relationship to God. God gave us our freedom during the creation.
Here is my blog article on the subject, if anyone is interested:
https://sethnotes.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-evil.html
virtual reality and simulated universe are words that are used and I stay far away from anyone saying that we are holograms or pixels or virtual for the same reasons people steer clear of religious dogma.
CONSCIOUSNESS is and it is VERY REAL.
I am a soul, a soul in flesh, and I AM able to create with my consciousness.
If it helps people to understand things by using the words, virtual or holographic, my opinion at this time is that you will lose a very important aspect to creating reality and that is that YOU HAVE consciousness for creation. My faith is not virtual faith, nor is it a holographic pixel.
My KNOWING I am a multidimensional being, is NOT virtual, nor is it some hologram.
This for me is NOT open for debate and I suppose anyone here could write an frikkin essay on "how I am wrong" but I will not read it or give it an ounce of my focus.
When I dream, I can work on things. When I enter another dimension and experience it, this is not a dream to me, but another mansion in my inner reality.
Physical reality is a TRAINING as we are baby gods in TRAINING. We will live out all of the "classes" we selected and until we do that we are not done.
For me, for example, an illusion that another can give me my joy and that my expectations of this person will be met so that I am happy, IS AN ILLUSION. For in REALITY I am responsible for my own joy and if I expect another to live up to my idea of this illusion then not only will I fall hard and possibly blame them for this that or the other, it makes me a victim and that is still an illusion, and it also makes me a slave master. REALITY is, that I create my reality. REALity.
I create reality from inner reality and here in my training reality it appears to me. It shows me all the things I believe. I meet it face to face.
I have inherited parental properties from my Entity. I AM an extension expanding and growing. I chose to be in this training school for a reason. It certainly wasnt to discover that I am virtual or made of holographic stuff.
I AM MADE OF INNER REALITY WHICH IS VERY REAL. All happening orgasmically again and again and again.
I AM A BABY GOD IN TRAINING
I AM is admitting I AM and I can be THIS THAT OR THE OTHER I AM BE BEING
Already happened! I create what I desire by already KNOWING I HAVE IT.
The definitions of "virtual" do not give me this gift!!!! Besides I already HAVE this gift of the gods! I am here to learn how to use it wisely and lovingly! And until I get that I will be here coming back as another life again and again. RE ALL!
I AM IT
I am the one I have been waiting for ALL OF MY LIFE! and there is no thing virtual or holographic about that!
Essential Meaning of virtual
1: very close to being something without actually being it
The country is ruled by a virtual dictator. [=by someone who is not officially a dictator but who is like a dictator in every important way]
Her victory is a virtual certainty. [=she almost certainly will win]
The species is nearing virtual extinction. [=it is almost extinct]
2: existing or occurring on computers or on the Internet
a virtual library
virtual shopping
The Web site provides a virtual tour of the stadium.
Full Definition of virtual
1: being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted
a virtual dictator
2: being on or simulated on a computer or computer network
print or virtual books
a virtual keyboard
: such as
a: occurring or existing primarily online
virtual shopping
b: of, relating to, or existing within a virtual reality
a virtual tour
3: of, relating to, or using virtual memory
4: of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence
virtual photons
You CREATE with your consciousness the illusion that you are not a god of your world until you step into that role AND ARE THE GOD OF YOUR UNIVERSE. A LIVING GOD.
It is an illusion that you CREATE. There is NOTHIING virtual about taking your power back and knowing you are a multi dimensional BEING.
We merely forgot because we are in TRAINING.
(I hypothetically need to use the bathroom now, so if I am virtual then I can pee virtually and not actually. The soul in flesh. Lets see if that works! lol)
I often will quote Seth and others and type here my own words. I have a freedom of expression. I express my understanding in a myriad of ways.
I did not realize that we have to speak or type a certain way just to please another. If the feedback I get stresses me out, I have an opportunity to see why that is or not.
We are on this forum to discuss many things. Not everyone will agree that is a given. How we express what we think we know or understand is our RIGHT and misinterpretations can be had. That also is a given.
Text offers us a limited way of expressing as it misses the excitement of our body language, our tone, and are twinkles in the eyes! What I said in the above post could be read from many different angles.
For me, it was written with a passion and an understanding FOR ME that I create my reality using my consciousness that I already have.
I am not angry not by a long shot lol nor was my post expressed in that way. I am confident about what I believe and I have faith in my own self and expression that it might via others beliefs about their own "laws" of communication, appear that I am. I am not! I also feel it is important enough to express what I say how I say it because it is important to me.
You want to believe in a virtual reality go for it! You want to believe in a holographic world go for it you are very free to do that.
I am expressing how I view my life. My beliefs. My creative power and what I have been taught via inner reality.
Everyone adds to the database of humanity and we will grow in ways we can not fathom perhaps, from such beliefs others have.
But I am a real soul in flesh. I am not almost there... I AM ALREADY THERE.
xoxoxoxoxoxo
My understanding of the Seth Material is that our existence is somewhat similar to a holodeck -- although Seth didn't say it like that; I don't think the concept of holodecks existed in the 1960's. When explaining the Material to people (which doesn't happen often, if ever), I do use a holodeck as a model. My understanding of the Material is that the pattern for reality is agreed upon by our inner selves, and then projected into space (space which is specifically created for the purpose), and then made solid by CUs or EEUs (which one I'm not sure). I have always thought that the concept of holodecks arose because it is based on reality.
If Seth is to be believed, we live in a universe of energy. Matter is, to an extent, an illusion. In fact, human scientists have already figured that out. Atoms are composed of electrons, protons and neutrons, which are units of energy. Science has also established that matter is 99% empty space. Atoms are held together by electromagnetism, which pretty much means that electromagnetism is the binder of the universe; it's what holds everything together.
The nature of energy being what it is, it seems to me that there has to be some very complicated science to turn it into the hard materials that we live with. Clearly, at some level this is a universe of science. I'm not saying that God himself devised atoms; but somebody certainly did. Somebody devised this arrangement. Consciousness is indeed the most real thing in the universe, but if consciousness wants to live among hard objects, an arrangement like this seems to be necessary.
It would seem that some people think that "holographic" means "virtual" or somehow not real. That is not the case.
Quote from: LarryH on November 23, 2021, 09:39:29 PMIt would seem that some people think that "holographic" means "virtual" or somehow not real. That is not the case.
Well, in our human world it does. Maybe, since we all believe in Seth on this forum, we shouldn't use the term. But from what Seth said, it seems that our reality is a spiritual or mental projection. Furthermore, our inner selves understand this (and are actively involved in doing it), but our outer selves aren't privy to the secret. This sounds very similar to what humans do when they enter holographic environments in the physical world -- part of them knows it isn't real. Yes, for us, life is very real; but this entire physical universe seems to be designed for our spiritual growth, so maybe it isn't as real as we think.
Quote from: barrie on November 23, 2021, 09:07:00 AMBarrie Comments: To me, this is very clear: These probable, conscious beings were "locked within" detailed ATI dreams—and so ATI had to find a "means" to PHYSICALIZE them or make them PHYSICAL—give them ACTUALITY as opposed to remaining NONPHYSICAL in detailed dreams.
Seth Continues: "THIS WAS INDEED IN YOUR TERMS A PRIMARY COSMIC DILEMMA (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.
Barrie Comments: I don't think Seth could be more clear—the "COSMIC DILEMMA" was to PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE...give them actuality or have them remain in the dream state.
Seth Continues: "...The pressure, in one way, came from two sources; from the conscious (underlined) but still probable individual selves who found themselves alive in a God's dream, and from the God who yearned to release them."
I am sorry, Barrie, but I am not able to agree with you. Perhaps you are at a disadvantage in not having the Kindle edition of the book. Dividing up Seth's paragraphs into sentences does not really help. The following is the relevant section in a single paragraph:
"Within All That Is, then, the wish, desire and expectation of creativity existed before all other actuality. Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time, as you understand it. So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past, in which these events occurred. The strength and vitality of these desires and expectations, in your terms then, became so insupportable that All That Is was driven to find the means to produce them. Now when I say there was a state of nonbeing, and yet speak of All That Was, existing simultaneously in that state, I mean (pause), that All That Is did exist, itself, obviously in a state of being, but in a state in which it could not find expression for its own being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this "period" in quotes, of contracted yearning, that All That Is could concentrate its energy sufficiently enough to create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it. The agony itself and the stupendous desire to create represented its proof of its own reality. The feelings in other words were adequate proof to All That Is that it was. (Pause.) At first, in your terms, all of probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within consciousness of All That Is. Later the unspecified nature of these "dreams," in quotes, grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became recognizable one from the other, until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is. And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more and more attention to his own dreams. He then purposely gave these more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not as yet created from himself. He gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be actual, so there was this final breaking-through that was still necessary. Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means. In his massive imagination, he understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth.
He saw then an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means. This was indeed in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 9 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)
Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/bCxwT3U
As you can see, this paragraph shows Seth's thought process leading up to the key phrase "primary cosmic dilemma". In that paragraph there is not a single mention of physical, non-physical, or physicalize.
QuoteSo, I do believe that my statement, "The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize..." – TOTALLY CORRECT altho those two terms were not used.
I am sorry, but I cannot see that.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 23, 2021, 02:51:41 PMYou'll notice that Seth used the word "creation". What I believe is that Seth, in these passages, is giving us a more accurate version of the Christian creation. The Christians imagine that God simply willed the physical universe into existence, and that the resulting universe became independent of God. Seth's story is more nuanced. What happened in the creation as Seth describes it is that ATI found a way to externalize his dreams so that they became self-actualizing and, essentially, independent and "free" of ATI's control. ATI gave his dreams self-determination, but ATI remains intricately entwined with them. God's psychic energy (and therefore consciousness) permeates all of existence, which is why Seth insisted that everything is part of ATI. Somehow, ATI remains the center, or the nexus, or the psychic engine of the universe. What changed during the creation was our relationship to God. God gave us our freedom during the creation.
Caleb, that is a useful paraphrase of the Seth account.
QuoteHere is my blog article on the subject, if anyone is interested:
https://sethnotes.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-evil.html
It is interesting that Perry writes of a "pantheistic universe":
QuoteSeth said we are all connected through God. We live in a pantheistic universe, meaning that the universe exists within God. The living energy that forms God also forms the universe, and God's consciousness flows with this energy, permeating everything (including us). Since the universe is formed from the life energy of God, and since God is not evil, nothing in the universe can be evil, including those seemingly evil people among us.
Quote from: strangerthings on November 23, 2021, 07:14:19 PM(I hypothetically need to use the bathroom now, so if I am virtual then I can pee virtually and not actually. The soul in flesh. Lets see if that works! lol)
St, I agree that virtual peeing is not satisfactory.
Quote from: LarryH on November 23, 2021, 09:39:29 PMIt would seem that some people think that "holographic" means "virtual" or somehow not real. That is not the case.
Larry, I have read Michael Talbot's book. My understanding is that the holographic universe is a metaphorical description.
QuoteShortly after this leap of insight, Bohm came across holograms and these proved to be the culminating metaphor he was looking for. In the same way that the ink drop existed in its dispersed state, the interference patterns recorded on film appeared disordered to the naked eye. Both possess orders that are hidden or enfolded from view. Well, the more he thought about this, the more he realized that the universe employed holographic principles?it was itself one giant hologram.
https://www.infoplease.com/math-science/space/universe/theories-of-the-universe-the-holographic-universe
Quote from: Sena on November 24, 2021, 01:25:51 AMAs you can see, this paragraph shows Seth's thought process leading up to the key phrase "primary cosmic dilemma". In that paragraph there is not a single mention of physical, non-physical, or physicalize.
Sena, What
leads up to the Cosmic Dilemma is
NOT the Cosmic Dilemma. It's what leads up to it.
This is what
Seth directly says the Cosmic Dilemma is. In
HIS words, not mine:
Seth: "This then
IS the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt.
He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed.
The means then came to him.
He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream."
Barrie Comments: This then means...
Seth: "This then
IS the dilemma...
He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream. To do so would give them actuality."
Barrie Comments: So, Seth
directly says that the
COSMIC DILEMMA...
IS to "
release the creatures and probabilities" from God's "
dream" and "
give them actuality."
What do you believe this means?
What do you believe "
give them actuality" means
in regard to releasing them from the dream state?
To release from the dream state and give them actuality MEANS to make them physical...to make them
actual...as opposed to remaining in the dream state.
What
else do you think it means?
How else do you or can you explain how this DOES NOT MEAN--to free them from the dream state and make them physical?
By the way, I have ALL the Seth books in digital form.
Quote from: Sena on November 24, 2021, 01:43:20 AMIt is interesting that Perry writes of a "pantheistic universe":
Just to make sure you understand, Perry and I are the same person. I used my middle name for the blog because, at the time I started it, I had a conservative landlord and didn't want to be evicted from my apartment. My current landlord is also conservative, so I decided to keep the name.
You know, I'm pretty sure that Seth used the word "pantheism" in the Material.
Barrie, physical reality is not the only actuality in the universe. Our universe within ATI is a physical universe, but I think it's likely that a majority of universes within ATI are not physical. What was developing in God's mind up to the Primary Cosmic Dilemma probably involved many universes, not just THIS physical universe. Remember, Seth said that the number of universes and/or planes of existence within ATI are pretty much infinite. All That Is is much greater in size and complexity than we can ever imagine.
Quote from: Sena on November 24, 2021, 01:25:51 AMI am sorry, Barrie, but I am not able to agree with you. Perhaps you are at a disadvantage in not having the Kindle edition of the book. Dividing up Seth's paragraphs into sentences does not really help. The following is the relevant section in a single paragraph:
Sena, I hope you realize that you basically repeated the EXACT excerpt that I discussed in detail.
And how else can Seth readers discuss in detail what Seth said other than break long excerpts up into specific sections in order to discuss them? How is that not helpful?
THAT SAID, perhaps you don't realize that in Early Sessions 9 -- Session 427 was NOT one long paragraph. THIS is how the pertinent section appears in the book, broken up into many paragraphs.And IF it WAS one long paragraph, it would it would be appropriate to break it up up into smaller pieces in order to discuss in detail...
Following is how Session 427 appears in ES9 and what I excerpted from to discuss what the COSMIC DILEMMA was:
SESSION 427 AUGUST 7, 1968 9:00 PM WEDNESDAY(The evening was again very hot and humid and Jane had been bothered by such conditions all day; but she wanted to hold the session as usual Shortly before nine she reported glimmerings from Seth.
(Her pace as Seth was slower than Mondays, but still a good one. Pauses and eyes open, etc.)
Good evening.
("Good evening, Seth. ")
Now. Desire, wish and expectation rule all actions, and are the basis for all realities.
Within All That Is, then, the wish, desire and expectation of creativity existed before all other actuality. Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time, as you understand it.
So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past, in which these events occurred. The strength and vitality of these desires and expectations, in your terms then, became so insupportable that All That Is was driven to find the means to produce them.
Now when I say there was a state of nonbeing, and yet speak of All That Was, existing simultaneously in that state, I mean (pause), that All That Is did exist, itself, obviously in a state of being, but in a state in which it could not find expression for its own being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this "period" in quotes, of contracted yearning, that All That Is could concentrate its energy sufficiently enough to create the reali¬ties that existed in probable suspension within it.
The agony itself and the stupendous desire to create represented its proof of its own reality. The feelings in other words were adequate proof to All That Is that it was. (Pause.)
At first, in your terms, all of probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within consciousness of All That Is. Later the unspecified nature of these "dreams," in quotes, grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became rec¬ognizable one from the other, until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is. And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more and more attention to his own dreams.
He then purposely gave these more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not as yet created from himself. He gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be actual, so there was this final breaking-through that was still necessary.
Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means.
In his massive imagination, he understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth. He saw then an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means.
This was indeed in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.
Now had he not solved it, All That Is in ways that cannot be understood, would have faced insanity, and there would have been literally a reality without reason, and a universe run wild.
The pressure, in one way, came from two sources; from the conscious (underlined) but still probable individual selves who found themselves alive in a Gods dream, and from the God who yearned to release them. On the other hand you could say that the pressure existed simply on the part of the God, since the creation existed within his dream. But in these terms such tremendous power resides in such primary pyramid gestalts that even their dreams are endowed with vitality and reality. (Pause.)
This then is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt. He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed. The means then came to him. He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream.
To do so would give them actuality. However it also meant "losing", in quotes, a portion of his own consciousness, for it was within that portion that they were held in bondage. All That Is had to let go. While he thought of these individuals as his creations, he held them as part of himself and refused their actuality.
To let them go was to lose that portion of himself that had created them. Already he could scarcely keep up with the myriad probabilities that began to emerge from each separate consciousness. With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free. The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation.
You may take your break.
(9:43- Jane had again been in a deep trance but emerged in short order. Her pace had been relatively fast. She resumed at 9:55.)
All That Is therefore "lost," in quotes, a portion (underlined) of itself in that creative endeavor. Yet all individuals remember their source, and now dream of All That Is, as All That Is once dreamed of them. And they yearn toward that immense source, and yet to set it free, to give it actuality through their own creations.
The motivating force is still All That Is, but the individuality is no illusion. Now in this same way do you give freedom to the personality fragments within your own dreams, and for the same reason. And you create for the same reason, and within all of you is the memory of that primal agony—that urge to create and free all probable consciousnesses into actuality.
(Longpause.) This session needs reading many times, for there are implications not at first obvious.
Quote from: LarryH on November 23, 2021, 09:39:29 PMIt would seem that some people think that "holographic" means "virtual" or somehow not real. That is not the case.
This is an interesting discussion. First of all, 'holographic' is not 'virtual'. Holographic means every bit of information is contained in every single piece (holograms of a bank card). Maybe one should also differentiate between the holographic principle and a full-fledged hologram (e.g. ABBA avatars on stage during a recent 'holographic' performance). 'Virtual' rather means 'not real', and has per se nothing to do with the term 'holographic'. Tom Campbell came forward with the term 'Virtual Reality' in his books. He is a physicist, but he was also the key experimentor at the Monroe Institute. To him everything is caused by consciousness, which is a remarkable position for a physicist. To him research results at CERN are only explainable if reality is 'not real' in the sense we think it is. According to him an electron is not 'a particle' with a negative charge. It is a 'point' with the characteristic of a negative charge. Only then, so Campbell, can the results at CERN be explained.
To us it does not really matter whether we are one single huge piece of flesh, composed of bones, blood, water and fat, prone to be killed in wars at Roman times, or a conglomerate of cellular structures, or invisible atoms, or subatomic particles, or waves, or strings, or basically 'nothing at all'. If we get the mundane information that our brain is using only 10 per cent of its capacity, this does not affect our daily life. In the same way, if we are informed that our body is composed of 60 per cent water this information does not diminish the quality of our life. And if you begin thinking of particles, composing the complicated cellular structures of your body, you get infomation that implies that exactly that solid body is de facto no solid unity. Far away. If you investigate invisible atoms you will find that they consist basically of nothing, there is just a lot of empty space, except some extremely tiny subatomic particles. If you investigate these subatomic particles you will get a similar result, leading to the hypothesis, that there is basically 'nothing' at all, except a few hypothetical constructs which you can never directly experience and investigate, eg. for sake of verification. You are only interpreting indirect data at CERN. The results of an 'event' (a clash of atoms). No one has ever seen a subatomic particle.
But this knowledge does not diminish the value of an individual. In the same way as it does not diminish the legal responsibility for its deeds as a single person, unable to blame the crimes on its disadvantagous genetic materials or the malfunctioning of hormones.
According to Seth everybody is creating his our her own camouflage universe. It is 'blinking' and 'does exist as often as it doesn't exist' (Seth). The cat Willie created a universe (created and re-created) where the bug on the wall was fatter and lived longer than the 'same' bug created by Jane Roberts. And the bug created and re-created by Robert Butts was of a different colour (Seth).
The 'capsule comprehension' is a clear circumscription of the holographic principle in the Seth material. The reality we think we perceive is only the far end of a long reality production mechanism which starts in F2, not in F1. And what we create in line with the vibrations of our belief systems is 'camouflage'. Seth is very clear on that. It may be possible to replace the concept of 'virtuality' by 'camouflage' but this does not change at all the issues that are at stake.
His main message is that there is a neutral reality production mechanism (early TES 3). And this mechanism is producing individualized camouflage universes in line with the individual belief systems. Moment for moment for moment. And these belief systems can be changed. This is the second part of his message. Everybody can improve his or her life. The description how was delivered in NoPR.
Quote from: Sena on November 24, 2021, 01:25:51 AM"Within All That Is, then, the wish, desire and expectation of creativity existed before all other actuality. Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time, as you understand it. So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past, in which these events occurred. The strength and vitality of these desires and expectations, in your terms then, became so insupportable that All That Is was driven to find the means to produce them. Now when I say there was a state of nonbeing, and yet speak of All That Was, existing simultaneously in that state, I mean (pause), that All That Is did exist, itself, obviously in a state of being, but in a state in which it could not find expression for its own being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this "period" in quotes, of contracted yearning, that All That Is could concentrate its energy sufficiently enough to create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it. The agony itself and the stupendous desire to create represented its proof of its own reality. The feelings in other words were adequate proof to All That Is that it was. (Pause.) At first, in your terms, all of probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within consciousness of All That Is. Later the unspecified nature of these "dreams," in quotes, grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became recognizable one from the other, until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is. And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more and more attention to his own dreams. He then purposely gave these more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not as yet created from himself. He gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be actual, so there was this final breaking-through that was still necessary. Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means. In his massive imagination, he understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth. He saw then an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means. This was indeed in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 9 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)
Sena, I realize that I'm confused about your post...Do you think I just excerpted the bottom part of your paragraph that you put in
bold or do you realize that
I discussed in detail basically the whole paragraph?
I am repeating my breakdown and discussion of Session 427...to be sure you have seen the whole thing:
Seth (Session 427): "All That Is did exist, itself, obviously in a state of being, but in a state in which it could not find expression for its own being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this "period" in quotes, of contracted yearning, that All That Is could concentrate its energy sufficiently enough to
create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it."Barrie Comments: So, ATI wanted to "create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it."
Seth Continues: "...
At first, in your terms, all of probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within consciousness of All That Is. Later the unspecified nature of these "dreams," in quotes, grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became recognizable one from the other, until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is.
And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more and more attention to his own dreams."
Barrie Comments: So, these "nebulous dreams" are nonphysical...physical reality was not yet created...but ATI kept paying more and more attention to his own dreams.
Seth Continues: "He then purposely gave these more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not as yet created from himself.
He gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be ACTUAL, so there was this final breaking-through that was still necessary.
Barrie Comments: I mean Seth says outright that ATI "
gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be ACTUAL..."
To me, if these individuals where in
DREAMS and they "
yearned to be ACTUAL" – it means that they yearned to be
PHYSICAL...as opposed to remaining in nebulous dreams.
Seth Continues:
Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it.
They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means.Barrie Comments: So ATI "
loved" all these dream beings who had
"consciousness" before the "beginning" or before physical reality was created. These conscious beings greatly wanted to be "
released into actuality" or to be
MADE PHYSICAL. And ATI, with "
unspeakable sympathy"—wanted to help them become physical.
Seth Continues: "In his massive imagination, he understood the
cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework.
Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth."
Barrie Comments: Again, clearly, "
actuality" -- being made
PHYSICAL or being
PHYSICALIZED as opposed to remaining in detailed dream state--was
needed for these dream consciousness beings "
to be given birth."
Seth Continues: "He saw then an
infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means.Barrie Comments: To me, this is very clear: These
probable, conscious beings were "
locked within" detailed ATI dreams—and so ATI had to find a "
means" to
PHYSICALIZE them or make them PHYSICAL—give them ACTUALITY as opposed to remaining
NONPHYSICAL in detailed dreams.
Seth Continues: "
THIS WAS INDEED IN YOUR TERMS A PRIMARY COSMIC DILEMMA (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.
Barrie Comments: I don't think Seth could be more clear—the "
COSMIC DILEMMA" was to
PHYSICALIZE or
NOT PHYSICALIZE...give them
actuality or have them
remain in the dream state.
Seth Continues: "...
The pressure, in one way, came from two sources; from the conscious (underlined) but still probable individual selves who found themselves alive in a God's dream, and from the God who yearned to release them."
Barrie Comments: Again, I see total clarity: "
Probable individual selves... alive in a God's dream," and "
God who yearned to release them..." From where and to where? Release them from God's dream into actualization or physical reality—or, in other words,
PHYSICALIZE them.
Seth Continues:
This then is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt. He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed. The means then came to him.
He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream.Barrie Comments: Again THIS is the COSMIC DILEMMA: To
PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE and remain
NONPHYSICAL.
The answer: PHYSICALIZE – "He MUST release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream."
Seth Continues: "To do so would give them
actuality."
Barrie Comments: Again, clearly, to "
release the creatures...from his dream" means to
PHYSICALIZE them, make the
PHYSICAL, or, in other words, "g
ive them actuality" – as opposed to
remaining in the dream state.
Seth Continues: However it also meant "losing", in quotes, a portion of his own consciousness, for it was within that portion that
they were held in bondage. All That Is had to let go. While he thought of these individuals as his creations, he held them as part of himself and refused their actuality.
Barrie Comments: Here's more details of the
COSMIC DILEMMA: IF he
PHYSICALIZED them...they would be free or no longer "held in bondage" in his dream.
BUT while in his dream, they were still totally a "
part of himself" and so...what to do? "
Refuse" to PHYSICALIZE them and keep them
NONPHYSICAL in his dream—or release them from this "
bondage" and make them physical or
PHYSICALIZE them?
Seth Continues: To let them go was to
lose that portion of himself that had created them. Already he could scarcely keep up with the myriad probabilities that began to emerge from each separate consciousness.
With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free. The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation.
Barrie Comments: The
COSMIC DILEMMA has been resolved: "
With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free."
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 24, 2021, 02:18:37 AMBarrie, physical reality is not the only actuality in the universe. Our universe within ATI is a physical universe, but I think it's likely that a majority of universes within ATI are not physical. What was developing in God's mind up to the Primary Cosmic Dilemma probably involved many universes, not just THIS physical universe. Remember, Seth said that the number of universes and/or planes of existence within ATI are pretty much infinite. All That Is is much greater in size and complexity than we can ever imagine.
Caleb, To ground our discussion, this is what Seth said:
Seth (Session 427):: "This then IS the dilemma...He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream. To do so would give them actuality."
Seth also said (427): "Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness
before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it."
Caleb Writes: Physical reality is not the only actuality in the universe. Our universe within ATI is a physical universe, but I think it's likely that a majority of universes within ATI are not physical.
Barrie Responds: So, we agree that
included in the Cosmic Dilemma
was to PHYSICALIZE the creatures and probabilities. You ADD that there may have
also been other universes that are not physical. There ARE infinite numbers of nonphysical realities that are a part OF our physical system. So, PHYSICALIZATION cojld be said to include the whole shebang. In other words,
physicalization IS the creation of F1.In any case, the question is: How many nonphysical universes already existed
BEFORE the actualization? These nonphysical creatures and their probabilities had to be "somewhere nonphysical" in God's dream. So, there may have
already been infinite numbers of nonphysical realities.
I do
agree that there are infinite numbers of universes—some physical, some not physical, some with their version of what physical is.
The question is: What is actuality in regard to the cosmic dilemma? To create our physical universe or to create the infinite numbers of universes—
INCLUDING our physical universe.
I believe that this dilemma involved the human race.
They are the personalities and probability realities that are being referred to and being made physical
as opposed to remaining in the nonphysical dream state. I believe that this is Seth's version of the Big Bang of the camouflage of our physical universe--which includes our connections to the infinite numbers of the nonphysical probable and dream realities.
Now, this dream state of God may
already have infinite numbers of nonphysical universes in it—but none of them physical. In this case, it would be a physical universe or physical universes that were needed.
In any case, we
agree that being physicalized was at least a part of the dilemma.
Caleb Continues: What was developing in God's mind up to the Primary Cosmic Dilemma probably involved many universes, not just THIS physical universe.
Barrie Responds: Probably or probably not. I say "
probably not" because Seth easily
COULD HAVE SAID "many universes" but he did not.
Seth (Session 427): "Now had he not solved it, All That Is in ways that cannot be understood, would have faced insanity, and there would have been literally a reality without reason, and
A UNIVERSE run wild."
Barrie Comments: So, Seth did
NOT say "...and
UNIVERSES run wild."
Caleb Continues: Remember, Seth said that the number of universes and/or planes of existence within ATI are pretty much infinite. All That Is is much greater in size and complexity than we can ever imagine.
Barrie Responds: I
agree. But how does this fit in or not fit in with this Cosmic Dilemma...that is the question.
How many nonphysical universes already existed? These nonphysical creatures and their probabilities had to be "somewhere nonphysical" in God's dream. And this existed BEFORE actuality.
So, we get back to what is meant by actuality? And we are left with Seth saying "A UNIVERSE" and not "UNIVERSES."
I am going to further research the "agony" which was discussed in the previous Session 426--and also the possible the scope of ATI.
For those who like it short and sweet...my thoughts at this moment:
I believe that the Cosmic Dilemma concerned creating F1.
F2, F3 and whatever nonphysical realities already existed...but there was no F1...or did they. BUT there definitely was no F1.
All creatures and probabilities existed in God's dream. Was this F2 or F3 or F10 are all of them. In any case, there was no F1. I believe that F1 was needed in order to actualize, release and free what was in God's dream.
So, the agony and the Cosmic Dilemma involved the creation of F1...that did not yet exist. And of course, FROM F1 we still go into and blink in and out of F2, etc--which we never actually left.
So, the question is...did actuality create F1, F2, F3, F4 etc etc... or just F1 with the others already in existence?
God's dream existed--and this was a framework within which were the creatures and probabilities that needed more.
I'm on my way to bed, but I'll say a couple things first. The word "universe" can refer to the totality of existence, or it can refer to what I sometimes call a "sub-universe" within the "multiverse". Our physical universe would be a sub-universe. We can't be sure what Seth meant when he used the singular term "universe".
In any event, Seth's descriptions are so general that it is impossible to extrapolate any kinds of numbers or proportions insofar as physical vs. non-physical universes are concerned. Such a discussion is pretty much useless.
Quote from: barrie on November 24, 2021, 04:59:59 AMSena, I realize that I'm confused about your post...Do you think I just excerpted the bottom part of your paragraph that you put in bold or do you realize that I discussed in detail basically the whole paragraph?
Barrie, I am not questioning the fact that you have read the entire section with great care. It is our interpretation which is different.
QuoteSeth Continues: This then is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt. He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed. The means then came to him. He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream.
Barrie Comments: Again THIS is the COSMIC DILEMMA: To PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE and remain NONPHYSICAL. The answer: PHYSICALIZE – "He MUST release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream."
This is where we differ. The dilemma of All That Is was whether or not to "release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream". How i understand this is that All That Is had to decide whether or not to allow independent existence to these creatures. Once they have independent existence, each creature can decide whether of not to choose physical exitence.
My understanding of the Seth teaching is that we all existed in the "spirit world" (? Framework 2) before we decided to opt for physical exitence. Some personalities may never decide to opt for physical existence. Did Seth Two ever have physical existence?
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 24, 2021, 02:09:56 AMJust to make sure you understand, Perry and I are the same person. I used my middle name for the blog because, at the time I started it, I had a conservative landlord and didn't want to be evicted from my apartment. My current landlord is also conservative, so I decided to keep the name.
You know, I'm pretty sure that Seth used the word "pantheism" in the Material.
Caleb/Perry, that's very nice to know. Your blog is very informative.
Seth did not in fact use the word "pantheism":
https://findingseth.com/q/pantheism/
I assume that Seth avoided the word because of the negative connotations. At one time it could get you burnt at the stake by the Holy Catholic Church, as happened to Giordano Bruno.
Sena, so you are saying that Seth never used the word "pantheism"? I find that strange because I clearly understood that Seth was describing a pantheistic universe. But you know, Seth avoided a lot of words he didn't like. Sometimes he said them just so he could state that he didn't like them.
But listen, the Seth material is pantheistic in its message. One of the definitions of pantheism is that the universe exists within God, and that is what Seth was saying. That is, in fact, what "All That Is" means. So I don't understand why there is any question about it.
Now, "pantheism" means other things too. I think that its original meaning was that God exists in nature.
Now, it's my belief that the reason Seth said that everything exists within God is because God's consciousness permeates all of existence. I can see others disagreeing with that. I mean, what does "within" mean, anyway? "Within" usually references a relative position in physical reality, but most of the greater universe may not be physical at all.
Sena, you should call me Caleb. Perry is my middle name.
So this discussion is whether God is within everything or everything is within God? Maybe we can eliminate the word "within". Replace "God" with "All that Is", and we have "All that is" is everything. Kind of obvious. And we are not separate from All that Is. No portion of All that Is has been "lost".
Sometimes Rob would put a word in parentheses in a Seth quote to make a sentence more clear. When Seth said that All that Is had to "lose" a portion of itself, I suspect that this may have been one of those statements that needed more clarity, but maybe not obviously so. More than a missing word, I would interpret the statement as: All that Is had to cause a portion of Itself (us) to forget that it was a portion of Itself. My personal philosophy is that this illusion of separation is part of the species' challenge, to find our way back to ever greater awareness of our connection to the divine.
"Seth uses the word "God" sparingly, usually when speaking to students who are used to thinking in theological terms. As a rule, he speaks of "All That Is" or "Primary Energy Gestalts."
"Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time as you understand it. So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past in which these events occurred".
"All That Is retains memory of that state, and it serves as a constant impetus—in your terms—toward renewed creativity. Each self, as a part of All That Is, therefore also retains memory of that state. It is for this reason that each minute consciousness is endowed with the impetus toward survival, change, development, and creativity. It is not enough that All That Is, as a primary consciousness gestalt, desires further being, but that each portion of It also carries this determination.
"Yet the agony itself was used as a means, and the agony itself served as an impetus, strong enough so that All That Is initiated within Itself the
means to be.
"If—and this is impossible—all portions but the most minute last 'unit' of All That Is were destroyed, All That Is would continue, for within the smallest portion is the innate knowledge of the whole. All That Is protects Itself, therefore, and all that It has and is and will create.
"When I speak of All That Is, you must understand my position within It. All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself.
"It is conceivable, then, that It has evolved, in your terms, so long ago that It has forgotten Its origin, that It has developed from still another Primary which has—again, in your terms—long since gone Its way. So there are answers that I cannot give you, for they are not known anywhere in the system in which we have our existence. We do know that within this system of our All That Is, creation continues and developments are never still. We can deduce that on still other layers of which we are unaware, the same is true."
Chapter 18 of 'The Seth Material': 'The God Concept' (excerpt)
--------------------------
The possibility to destroy everything but the last tiny piece and then recreate the whole again from the complete information which is contained in the last minute tiny piece of the former whole is the holographic principle as clear as it can be. (A full-fleged hologram is still something different, but it is based on said principle.
Robert Butts did provide a drawing of the pyramid gestalts of consciousness (plural: the gestalts ). Just to get an idea. In: "Jane Roberts: Dialogues...", page 32
This is just meant to facilitate the discussion about Seth's concept of "All-that-is" & Co.
I have no opinion on that.
Quote from: Tob on November 25, 2021, 06:22:04 PM"Seth uses the word "God" sparingly, usually when speaking to students who are used to thinking in theological terms. As a rule, he speaks of "All That Is" or "Primary Energy Gestalts."
"Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time as you understand it. So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past in which these events occurred".
"All That Is retains memory of that state, and it serves as a constant impetus—in your terms—toward renewed creativity. Each self, as a part of All That Is, therefore also retains memory of that state. It is for this reason that each minute consciousness is endowed with the impetus toward survival, change, development, and creativity. It is not enough that All That Is, as a primary consciousness gestalt, desires further being, but that each portion of It also carries this determination.
"Yet the agony itself was used as a means, and the agony itself served as an impetus, strong enough so that All That Is initiated within Itself the means to be.
"If—and this is impossible—all portions but the most minute last 'unit' of All That Is were destroyed, All That Is would continue, for within the smallest portion is the innate knowledge of the whole. All That Is protects Itself, therefore, and all that It has and is and will create.
"When I speak of All That Is, you must understand my position within It. All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself.
"It is conceivable, then, that It has evolved, in your terms, so long ago that It has forgotten Its origin, that It has developed from still another Primary which has—again, in your terms—long since gone Its way. So there are answers that I cannot give you, for they are not known anywhere in the system in which we have our existence. We do know that within this system of our All That Is, creation continues and developments are never still. We can deduce that on still other layers of which we are unaware, the same is true."
Chapter 18 of 'The Seth Material': 'The God Concept' (excerpt)
--------------------------
The possibility to destroy everything but the last tiny piece and then recreate the whole again from the complete information which is contained in the last minute tiny piece of the former whole is the holographic principle as clear as it can be. (A full-fledged hologram is still something different, but it is based on said principle).
Robert Butts did provide a drawing of the pyramid gestalts of consciousness (plural: the gestalts ). Just to get an idea. In: "Jane Roberts: Dialogues...", page 32
This is meant to facilitate the discussion about Seth's concept of "All-that-is" & Co. I have no opinion on that.
"Simply stated, this is one of the thumbnail passages that explain Seth's concept of God:
"He is not human in your terms, though he passed through human stages; and here the Buddhist myth comes closest to approximating reality. He is not one individual, but an energy gestalt.
"If you remember what I said about the way in which the universe expands, that it has nothing to do with space, then you may perhaps dimly perceive the existence of a psychic pyramid of interrelated, ever-expanding consciousness that creates, simultaneously and instantaneously, universes and individuals that are given—through the gifts of personal perspective—duration, psychic comprehension, intelligence, and eternal validity.
"This absolute, ever-expanding, instantaneous psychic gestalt, which you may call God if you prefer, is so secure in its existence that it can constantly break itself down and rebuild itself.
"Its energy is so unbelievable that it does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes, systems, and fields, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for it is each sparrow that falls."
As mentioned earlier, however, the Seth Material does not ignore deeper questions having to do with the "beginning" of consciousness and of reality.
(...)
"Your idea of space and time is determined by your neurological structure.
"The camouflage is so craftily executed and created by the inner self that you must, of necessity, focus your attention in the physical reality which has been created. The psychedelic drugs alter the neurological workings, and therefore can give some slight glimpses into other realities."
"These realities exist, of course, whether or not you perceive them. Actually 'time' exists as the pulses leap the nerve ends. You must then experience lapses, as this is not a simultaneous procedure. Past, present, and future appear highly convincing and logical when there must be a lapse between each perceived experience.
"There is no such lapse in many other personality structures."
(Ibid.)
"This absolute, ever-expanding, instantaneous psychic gestalt, which you may call God if you prefer, is so secure in its existence that it can constantly break itself down and rebuild itself.
"Its energy is so unbelievable that it does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes, systems, and fields, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for it is each sparrow that falls." (Seth)
---------------------------------------
It is necessary to understand that these concepts imply categories of infinity and are therefore extremely hard to approach. One should not start the next generation of the 'how many angels fit the tip of a needle'- discussion. Enough wars have been waged over that.
According to Bashar there is 'The ONE', unbroken and homogenous who does not know itself, and 'All-that-is', which is 'a part' of 'The ONE', the part that knows of itself as it knows of 'an other' after splitting, thus developing self-awareness and 'I'-identity. We are all self-aware 'I'- parts of 'All-that-is'. There is no hierarchy. We can experience ourselves as our 'I'-version of 'All-that-is', in the same way as everybody else can. The 'I'- identity will never be destroyed.
And as we are able to experience ourselves as 'I'- version of 'All-that-is' with our 'I'-identity, and everybody else is able to do exactly the same, there must be even a greater version of all 'I'-versions of 'All-that-is', integrating all existing 'I' versions of 'All-that-is', otherwise it would not be all that it can be. And we are then again able to experience ourselves as the 'I' version of that larger 'All-that-is', etc......and others as well, etc.
And this goes up and up and up to the level of 'the ONE' (Bashar). It never ends.
This may be not the most satisfactory explanation but it helps. A graphic overview has been attempted by Robert Butts. (Dialogues...p.32). Seth was at the same time satisfied and not satisfied with the way the pyramid gestalts of consciousness were approached by Robert's consciousness. The shapes in the drawing have been proposed by Seth as a suboptimal 'solution'.
Quote from: LarryH on November 25, 2021, 10:13:34 AMSo this discussion is whether God is within everything or everything is within God? Maybe we can eliminate the word "within". Replace "God" with "All that Is", and we have "All that is" is everything. Kind of obvious. And we are not separate from All that Is. No portion of All that Is has been "lost".
Larry, it is more complicated. We also have t consider panentheism.
[urlhttps://imgbb.com/](https://i.ibb.co/CBpC2z5/panentheism-small.jpg)[/url]
The third item in the diagram is panentheism. What it seems to be saying is that God is the universe, but also more than the universe. jbseth was keen on panentheism. I prefer the simple pantheism.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 25, 2021, 12:33:46 AMBut listen, the Seth material is pantheistic in its message. One of the definitions of pantheism is that the universe exists within God, and that is what Seth was saying. That is, in fact, what "All That Is" means. So I don't understand why there is any question about it.
Caleb, I agree with you. You may also like to look at what I have written above to Larry on panentheism.
Sena, I don't know how you can agree with Caleb in your last post while disagreeing with my quote in the previous post. They say almost the same thing. Seth's view fits one version of pantheism. Any finer look at the issue is like a discussion on, as Seth says, "how many angels fit the pin of a needle" (he meant a discussion of how many angels fit on the head of a pin)! A more interesting discussion would be, just what exactly is "the pin of a needle"?
I think that Seth would agree that diagram three is the most correct. But diagram four may also be correct. The problem is that neither diagram describes a perfect gestalt, in which the WHOLE has additional abilities that the PARTS don't have. One of the problems with the diagrams is that they are physical representations of an essentially non-physical reality. Whatever else we know, we know that the universe is made up of energy, since even our physical universe is composed of energy. It may help to view God as the entity at the top of a vast pyramid of entities. God is the entity who contains all entities within him/her/it, and he/she/it benefits from all of their capabilities. (Maybe in the future I'll just go with "it".)
Who was JBSeth that you are referring to him or her in the past tense? Is that someone who has died?
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 26, 2021, 03:49:32 PMWho was JBSeth that you are referring to him or her in the past tense? Is that someone who has died?
jbseth was once a very active member who chose to leave a few months ago.
Ah! This topic has made a full circle back to the original question, "Did Seth teach pantheism?" I love when that happens. I don't have anything useful to contribute, not being interested in -isms at all, but it does appear that he did, without saying as much, at least according to some definitions. But I still don't see Seth as teaching a religion or doctrine. There's no separation, all that is, is one.
Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy: "[P]antheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe." If I were to make a chart, I'd just have a piece of paper with
all that is everything that is written in the middle. ;)
Quote from: LarryH on November 26, 2021, 01:12:00 PMas Seth says, "how many angels fit the pin of a needle" (he meant a discussion of how many angels fit on the head of a pin)! A more interesting discussion would be, just what exactly is "the pin of a needle"?
Now THAT is interesting to me. I know you have a knack for finding typos. Where did you see that Larry? I couldn't find it. I'm dying to check Mary's Rob transcripts/published book comparisons.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 26, 2021, 03:49:32 PMWho was JBSeth that you are referring to him or her in the past tense? Is that someone who has died?
Caleb, jbseth was a very active member. This is one of the threads he started:
https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,2052.msg18286.html#msg18286
Quote from: LarryH on November 26, 2021, 01:12:00 PMSena, I don't know how you can agree with Caleb in your last post while disagreeing with my quote in the previous post.
Larry, I did not disagree with you. It looks as if you imagined that I disagreed with you.
Quote from: Deb on November 26, 2021, 05:15:11 PMNow THAT is interesting to me. I know you have a knack for finding typos. Where did you see that Larry? I couldn't find it. I'm dying to check Mary's Rob transcripts/published book comparisons.
This is weird because I looked for the quote above and could not find it. I could swear that someone was quoting Seth including the phrase, "the pin of the needle" and thought to myself that it sounded redundant. But all I could find was Tob's statement below (NOT a Seth quote):
Quote from: Tob on November 26, 2021, 03:38:22 AMOne should not start the next generation of the 'how many angels fit the tip of a needle'- discussion.
There is nothing redundant about "the tip of a needle", it's just not the common reference to the opposite end of the needle (how many angels can fit on the HEAD of a needle). But I specifically remember reading "the pin of a needle." Clearly a glitch in the matrix, proving that we are in an artificial reality created by aliens. :)
Quote from: Sena on November 24, 2021, 11:27:51 PMI am not questioning the fact that you have read the entire section with great care. It is our interpretation which is different.
Sena Had Written: "Perhaps you are at a disadvantage in not having the Kindle edition of the book. Dividing up Seth's paragraphs into sentences does not really help. The following is the relevant section in a single paragraph;"
Barrie Comments: That is what seemed to me to be your questioning if I read the full paragraph...which was not even one paragraph, by the way, but many paragraphs. If you believe that I read the whole thing, then what "disadvantage" was I at?
You are the creator of your own reality. And it is a camouflage reality reflecting your beliefs, thoughts and emotions.
I found this compilation of Seth statements on the internet. It is about the creation of matter (in F1).
SETH Creation of Matter By Seth/Jane Roberts http://educate-yourself.org/mbc/sethcreationofmatter.shtml http://www.geocities.com/sethtalk/idea_cm.htm
Seth says that this is something we all do. "You form the camouflage world or appearances with the same part of you that breathes." Session 23, p.167 , The Early Sessions, Book 1 "The physical world that you recognize is made up of invisible patterns. These patterns are "plastic," in that while they exist, their final form is a matter of probabilities directed by consciousness. Your senses perceive these patterns in their own ways." Session 803, p.29 , The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events "Emotions, instead of propelling a physical rocket, for example, send thoughts from this interior reality through the barrier between nonphysical and physical into the "objective" world -- no small feat, and one that is constantly repeated." Session 625, p.95 , The Nature of Personal Reality "The intensity of a feeling or thought or mental image is, therefore, the important element in determining its subsequent physical materialization." Session 525, p.66, Seth Speaks "The inner senses were always paramount in evolutionary development, being the impetus behind the physical formations; and themselves, through the use of mental enzymes, imprinting the data contained in the mental genes onto the physical camouflage material." Session 26, p.198 , The Early Sessions, Book 1 "Suggestion is no more and no less than an inner willingness and consent to allow a particular action to occur; and this consent is the trigger which sets off the subconscious mechanisms that allow you to construct inner data into physical reality." Session 68, p.215, The Early Sessions, Book 2 "A primary construction is a psychic gestalt, formed into matter by a consciousness of itself. Such a primary construction is an attempt to create, in the world of matter, a replica of the inner psychic construction of the whole self." Session 71, p.239, The Early Sessions, Book 2 "Secondary physical constructions are those created by a consciousness of its conception of other consciousnesses, from data received through telepathy and other means." Session 71, p.240, The Early Sessions, Book 2 "In all cases consciousness is first, and it forms its physical constructions according to its abilities, first of all forming its own primary construction, and then brancing outward, constucting secondary images of other ocnsciousnesses with whom it comes in contact." Session 71, p.241, The Early Sessions, Book 2 "These simple remarks will themselves be the basis for further rather involved discussions, as the mechanisms that are set into motion in such mental or psychic manipulation of matter have never really been explained. Remember however that such psychic manipulation of matter is the normal occurrence. It is however usually operating at subconscious levels, and without either knowledge or intent as far as the conscious mind is concerned. To be able to bring these natural but subconscious forces at all under any domination by the conscious mind is a terrific task. Such domination will never be habitual, but conscious awareness of subconscious manipulation of matter may become habitual, and may often of its own accord follow the desires of the conscious mind, if certain conditions are met. First of all, the conscious desires must be in league with, and unopposed by, subconscious expectations. Two, sufficient emotional impetus must be discharged, and this will be on or from subconscious levels. And three, communication between the conscious and subconscious, or the inner and so-called outer parts of the whole self, must be excellent." Session 81, p.305, The Early Sessions, Book 2 "Prayer has been extremely successful in enabling individuals to manipulate matter through use of their psychic abilities." Session 81, p.307, The Early Sessions, Book 2 "There are certain points in time and space, therefore, (again in your terms), that are more conducive than others, where both ideas and matter will more be highly charged. Practically speaking, this means that buildings will last longer, in your context, that ideas wedded to form will be relatively eternal. The pyramids, for example, are a case in point." Session 524, p.64, Seth Speaks "To make this clearer, look at any table in the room before you. It is physical, solid, and you perceive it easily. Now for an analogy, imagine if you can that behind the table is another just like it, but not quite as physical, and behind that one another, and another behind that -- each one more difficult to perceive, fading into invisibility. And in front of the table is a table just like it, only a bit less physical appearing than the "real" table -- it also having a succession of even less physical tables extending outward. And tghe same for each side of the table. Now anything that appears in physical terms also exists in other terms that you do not perceive. You only perceive realities when they achieve a certain "pitch", when they seem to coalesce into matter. But they actually exist, and quite validly at other levels." Session 530, p.87, Seth Speaks "Emotions then, in their own realm unperceived by the outer senses, have their own solidity, shape, and it is from these that your expectations are formed. The emotions indeed do form the expectations, and it is not the other way around. As physical objects can be manipulated, so can the emotions be manipulated, so can they be combined into various shapes and psychic constructions, A man"s expectations are the result of his emotional heritage, and his own ability to understand and manipulate that heritage." Session 76, p. 275, The Early Sessions, Book 2 "Again, expectations are not only vital in the formation of physical constructions, but they also determine what inner data of all available, will be received by the individual; and then the individual interprets the data in terms of the same expectations. The core of individuality, then, is the individual"s expectations, for he will truly get what he wants, individually and collectively. If a man wants to change his fate, desire is not enough, but expectation is. Desire may grow into expectation, but alone it is not enough. Expectation is actually the main trigger that switches inner data into the realm of physical construction. Without it, no physical construction results." Session 76, p.276, The Early Sessions, Book 2 "Expectation is the force, then, that triggers psychic realities into physical construction." Session 76, p.276, The Early Sessions, Book 2 "Expectations are formed by the emotions then, it is obviously the basic emotions themselves that must be manipulated, since the expectations are the frameworks formed by the emotions. This is the starting point" Session 76, p.277, The Early Sessions, Book 2 "Emotional power behind your expectations powers your expectations into physical reality." Session 76, p.278, The Early Sessions, Book 2 "What you call suggestion is indeed expectation." Session 160, p.70, The Early Sessions, Book 4 "...you construct your physical universe and your private environment in line with your inner expectations, for they mirror perfectly the deepest areas of your own inner reality." Session 253, p.114, The Early Sessions, Book 6 "So your soul, that which you are, constructs your physical daily reality for you from the nature of your thoughts and expectations. You can readily see, therefore how important your subjective feelings really are." Session 527, p.79, Seth Speaks "We have spoken of expectations. These, you see, are electrical realities which may explain their importance; for you not only sometimes predict so called future events, but you create their actuality within the electrical field, and therefore insure their existence one way or another within the physical field." Session 127, p.240, The Early Sessions, Book 3 "If you direct your inner self with confidence to steer you through your physical existence, it will do so. If you concentrate upon difficulties you will not allow it to do so." Session 220, p.189, The Early Sessions, Book
Quote from: barrie on November 27, 2021, 04:03:13 AMIf you believe that I read the whole thing, then what "disadvantage" was I at?
Hi Barrie, the only disadvantage is that it is laborious to copy out text manually from a print book, whereas it is possible to send large chunks of text to email from Kindle.
The main point is that you have not responded to my last post addressed to you on what I think is an important issue.
It is a pity that you seem to be taking this as a personal attack on you. That is absolutely not my intention. There would not be much point in a forum if everyone is expected to agree with everyone else all the time.
Quote from: Sena on November 27, 2021, 07:59:56 AMThe main point is that you have not responded to my last post addressed to you on what I think is an important issue.
It is a pity that you seem to be taking this as a personal attack on you. That is absolutely not my intention. There would not be much point in a forum if everyone is expected to agree with everyone else all the time.
Sena, I did not see any post. I would have and will gladly respond if I can find it in this growing number of posts.
Also, I do not and did not take your comment as a personal attack in ANY way whatsoever. I was only curious...as I stated...I couldn't understand your point. So, I asked for clarification. Not understanding something and wanting to understand it--is not taking something as a personal attack.
Also, I WELCOME disagreement as much as agreement. One important way to learn, grow and evolve IS thru disagreement. For me, it gives me the chance to evaluate and/or reevaluate what I believe and why, explore it from various angles that I may never have come up with on my own--and BETTER understand myself and the Seth material.
Quote from: barrie on November 27, 2021, 08:23:30 AMSena, I did not see any post. I would have and will gladly respond if I can find it in this growing number of posts.
Barrie, thanks for your reply. This is my post I am referring to:
https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,2505.msg21114.html#msg21114
QuoteSeth Continues: This then is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt. He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed. The means then came to him. He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream.
Barrie Comments: Again THIS is the COSMIC DILEMMA: To PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE and remain NONPHYSICAL. The answer: PHYSICALIZE – "He MUST release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream."
This is where we differ. The dilemma of All That Is was whether or not to "release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream". How i understand this is that All That Is had to decide whether or not to allow independent existence to these creatures. Once they have independent existence, each creature can decide whether of not to choose physical exitence.
My understanding of the Seth teaching is that we all existed in the "spirit world" (? Framework 2) before we decided to opt for physical exitence. Some personalities may never decide to opt for physical existence. Did Seth Two ever have physical existence?
QuoteAlso, I do not and did not take your comment as a personal attack in ANY way whatsoever.
I am glad that has been cleared up.
Quote from: Sena on November 27, 2021, 09:17:21 AMSeth Continues: This then is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt. He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed. The means then came to him. He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream.
Barrie Comments: Again THIS is the COSMIC DILEMMA: To PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE and remain NONPHYSICAL. The answer: PHYSICALIZE – "He MUST release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream."
This is where we differ. The dilemma of All That Is was whether or not to "release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream". How i understand this is that All That Is had to decide whether or not to allow independent existence to these creatures. Once they have independent existence, each creature can decide whether of not to choose physical exitence.
My understanding of the Seth teaching is that we all existed in the "spirit world" (? Framework 2) before we decided to opt for physical exitence. Some personalities may never decide to opt for physical existence. Did Seth Two ever have physical existence?
Sena Writes: This is where we differ. The dilemma of All That Is was whether or not to "release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream". How i understand this is that All That Is had to decide whether or not to allow independent existence to these creatures. Once they have independent existence, each creature can decide whether of not to choose physical existence.
Barrie Responds: I believe I have, in part, inadvertently addressed SOME of this...one day before your post. So FIRST let's look at what I had written on 11-24-21:
-----------------
Barrie Wrote (11-24-21) "For those who like it short and sweet...my thoughts at this moment:
I believe that the Cosmic Dilemma concerned creating F1.
F2, F3 and whatever nonphysical realities already existed...but there was no F1...or did they. BUT there definitely was no F1.
All creatures and probabilities existed in God's dream. Was this F2 or F3 or F10 are all of them. In any case, there was no F1. I believe that F1 was needed in order to actualize, release and free what was in God's dream.
So, the agony and the Cosmic Dilemma involved the creation of F1...that did not yet exist. And of course, FROM F1 we still go into and blink in and out of F2, etc--which we never actually left.
So, the question is...did actuality create F1, F2, F3, F4 etc etc... or just F1 with the others already in existence?
God's dream existed--and this was a framework within which were the creatures and probabilities that needed more.
-----------------
Barrie NOW Responds: So, let's bring this back to your 11-25-21 post and I'll answer you as we go along:
The question is: Did the creatures in God's dream have an independent existence to think and create etc—while IN God's dream state—but had no F1 in order to further expand and create? I say yes.
Seth said that the probable realities where multiplying etc—and the dream state couldn't contain it all—so God wanted to give them actuality. I believe the growing probable realities and other things Seth said show that the creatures DID have an independence in the dream state. If you would like to discuss this more, then I will find the excerpts.
Anyway, given what I have just stipulated, the questions now are:
1. Did God MAKE his dream creatures physical in the newly-created F1--freeing them from the dream state?
2. OR as you, Sena, say: After they were freed...did they still remain in F2 or their own dream state—altho they NOW had the choice to physicalize themselves in the new F1 or not.
I believe I have summed up both of our positions. If not, please clarify.
Sena Continues: My understanding of the Seth teaching is that we all existed in the "spirit world" (? Framework 2) before we decided to opt for physical existence. Some personalities may never decide to opt for physical existence.
Barrie Responds: Given what you say here, I agree with. We all exist in the timeless F2--and from there we send forth our focal personalities into the various linear time periods in F1.
From THIS perspective, I will explore my original comments.
So, IF the Cosmic Dilemma was to create F1, or create the physical dimension...
--then IF the people in God's dream chose NOT to physicalize—"where" would they be?
--Still in God's dream?
--In an F2 OUTSIDE of God's dream?
--Would this be a newly-created F2?
--Did God just make them all physical while still having their natural connection to F2—and now they had to deal with it all while now being physical?
I'm not sure about these answers yet. But they are very interesting to ponder. I will continue to explore.
Sena Continues: Did Seth Two ever have physical existence?
Barrie Comments: Seth2 is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. In a totally different ball park.
According to Seth, Seth2 gave us the blue-prints about how to create F1 in the first place. Taught us HOW to create our own reality within F1.
IF, Seth2 gave us the blueprints to create F1, then how does that fit in with God's Dilemma? Who created F1? Which now gets us back to—what does "actuality" mean as Seth uses the term? What was the agony? Why would God go insane if he didn't "free" those in his dream?
The question may be: Did Seth PRECEDE God? Did God create Seth2 OR did Seth2 create God?
Look at what Seth2 said in class:
Seth2 (ESP Class, 7-19-71): "Our perception allows us to tune into the particular fantasies that you perceive as one indivisible reality. We can perceive it, but WE CANNOT PARTICIPATE ONLY OBSERVE that which, in your terms – eons ago we helped create as you are now continuing in what you might call dreams our fantasies now do create..."
Seth2 (ESP Class, 4-20-71): "We move through systems such as yours faster than the speed of light, and so what I am saying is already a translation and, in your terms, a message left in the past of your time..."
Barrie Comments: Jane could only go so far to "reach" S2...and could not directly reach Seth2. Besides that, Seth2 had no language or thoughts we could recognize. Seth2 is so removed and "distant" from Seth and humans and our dimension...that Seth was needed meet Seth2 halfway and to translate for Jane—what Seth 2 was saying.
For example, here is just one more example of Seth2:
Seth2 (ESP Class, 5-28-68): "To me, your universe is perhaps as a star might appear to you...I transmit information to Seth, who then interprets it for Ruburt. The information that I have would not be understandable to you in my terms, and therefore must be interpreted and translated.
"I have not been [a] personality acquainted with your own reality or with your system or with your dimension. Seth, however, has. He is therefore in a position to translate the information which I then impart...
"What you experience as emotion I experience in a sort of mathematical intensity, and translate..."
Barrie Comments: So...how about them apples thrown into the mix!
Here is a partial list of just some of Seth2 claims:
1. We gave you mental images and upon these images you learned to form the world that you know.
2. We gave you the pattern by which your physical selves are formed.
3. We gave you the pattern by which you learned to form your physical reality.
4. We gave you the patterns intricate, involved and blessed from which you form the reality of each physical thing you know.
5. The most minute cell within your brain has been made from the patterns of consciousness which we have given you.
6. We gave you the pattern upon which you formed your entire physical universe and the comprehension that exists within each cell, the knowledge that each cell has, the desire for organization was given by us.
7. We are involved in forming creations, realities, consciousness -- worlds beyond your comprehension.
8. We form the realities, we give birth to universes.
9. We have always watched, we are the watchers and the protectors, and you have never been alone.
10. You are being allowed freedom within limits.
11. We are highly interested in such experiments as Seth is conducting.
12. We move through systems such as yours faster than the speed of light.
13. Since we seeded the universe in which you have your present existence then do we observe, and do we watch, and do we have concern.
14. We seeded your god.
Barrie Comments: So, where does all this leave us with exploring the Cosmic Dilemma?
Does the concept of Seth2 not being physical--relate to the dilemma of giving humans the choice to be physical or not?
According to all, they needed to be taught how to create the physical dimension. Was THIS the actuality?
So the questions remain:
Does Seth2 "precede" God?
How does Seth2 fit in or not fit in with the Cosmic Dilemma?
PS: This just took me more than 2 hours to write.
I'm not encouraged that the discussion in this thread is now on who said what when, and whose interpretation of the Material is the most accurate. Seth was vastly more clear and specific than, say, Edgar Cayce was, but when Seth talks in broad terms, like he does of the creation event, it doesn't make sense to argue the specifics.
I have to say this, though: The impression that I was left with from reading the books is that physicality is more the exception than the norm in the universe, meaning the greater Whole that contains the multiple universes within it. But we can't be sure because Seth didn't give us percentages.
Of course, for us to be arguing about whether the Universe is a mostly physical or nonphysical place is kind of silly given that we are physical creatures and don't remember what it feels like to be in a spiritual form.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 28, 2021, 06:53:26 AMOf course, for us to be arguing about whether the Universe is a mostly physical or nonphysical place is kind of silly given that we are physical creatures and don't remember what it feels like to be in a spiritual form.
Caleb, No one is arguing anything at all. We are DISCUSSING the Cosmic Dilemma and what it may or may not entail. It is nothing about who said what when. Any dates mentioned are for clarification. Nothing more.
Profound questions have been raised that go to the heart of reality creation, God and Seth2.
This a Seth board whose purpose is to discuss the Seth material.
Quote from: barrie on November 28, 2021, 07:33:27 AMProfound questions have been raised that go to the heart of reality creation, God and Seth2.
This a Seth board whose purpose is to discuss the Seth material.
"When I speak of All That Is, you must understand my position within It. All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself.
"It is conceivable, then, that It has evolved, in your terms, so long ago that It has forgotten Its origin, that It has developed from still another Primary which has—again, in your terms—long since gone Its way. So there are answers that I cannot give you, for they are not known anywhere in the system in which we have our existence. We do know that within this system of our All That Is, creation continues and developments are never still. We can deduce that on still other layers of which we are unaware, the same is true." Seth, in: 'The Seth Material', chapter 18: 'The Concept of God',
Thanks for bringing this topic up.
There seems to be an issue with Seth 2 having been 'there' before 'God'. Please find below a link to Robert Butts' drawing in 'Dialogues' (p. 32). The shapes have been proposed by Seth as 'suboptimal, however acceptable'. They are meant to illustrate the 'pyramid gestalts of consciousness'.
https://abload.de/image.php?img=slantf7k7d.png
It may be of interest to notice that the formulation in the above quote is 'our' All That is.
(it would be nice if it was possible to upload such pictures directly. There is no copyright infringement involved as long as they fall under the research exemption/fair use doctrin)
Quote from: barrie on November 28, 2021, 06:01:10 AMDoes Seth2 "precede" God?
How does Seth2 fit in or not fit in with the Cosmic Dilemma?
Barrie, thanks for all the effort you put into this post. It is fairly clear to me that Seth2 does
not precede All That Is. The word "precede" implies the passage of time, and nowhere does Seth state that All That Is is subject to the passage of time.
My understanding is that Seth Two is one of the individual consciousnesses brought into being by All That Is (again with no passage of time), and therefore Seth Two did not have to face the Cosmic Dilemma. It is only All That Is, not the individual consciousnesses, which faced the Cosmic Dilemma.
Quote from: Tob on November 28, 2021, 08:27:47 AM"When I speak of All That Is, you must understand my position within It. All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself.
"It is conceivable, then, that It has evolved, in your terms, so long ago that It has forgotten Its origin, that It has developed from still another Primary which has—again, in your terms—long since gone Its way. So there are answers that I cannot give you, for they are not known anywhere in the system in which we have our existence. We do know that within this system of our All That Is, creation continues and developments are never still. We can deduce that on still other layers of which we are unaware, the same is true." Seth, in: 'The Seth Material', chapter 18: 'The Concept of God',
Tob, thanks for highlighting these important paragraphs. What it is saying is that All That Is is
not literally All That Is. There may be other psychic gestalts like It!!
Quote from: Sena on November 28, 2021, 09:42:45 AMQuote from: Tob on November 28, 2021, 08:27:47 AM"When I speak of All That Is, you must understand my position within It. All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself.
"It is conceivable, then, that It has evolved, in your terms, so long ago that It has forgotten Its origin, that It has developed from still another Primary which has—again, in your terms—long since gone Its way. So there are answers that I cannot give you, for they are not known anywhere in the system in which we have our existence. We do know that within this system of our All That Is, creation continues and developments are never still. We can deduce that on still other layers of which we are unaware, the same is true." Seth, in: 'The Seth Material', chapter 18: 'The Concept of God',
Tob, thanks for highlighting these important paragraphs. What it is saying is that All That Is is not literally All That Is. There may be other psychic gestalts like It!!
Yes, it is a strange statement. I just wanted to add it here as it may be instrumental in the context given. Again, I have no opinion on that. Still trying to understand. When reading TES1 I already stumbled over the term 'Pyramid Gestalts of Consciousness, which are allegedly too large and immense for full materialization in F1 (Seth). Followed by Seth's remark that he has gone too early into this complicated subject matter. (Too early for Jane's consciousness at that time). As he was also referring to some earlier statements regarding such pyramid gestalts, I tried to look them up, but there was nothing in TES1. I thought maybe these passages do exist but were deleted to keep the books more legible. It can defy logic (and deter the audience) when aspects of infinity are involved. Not so easy to visualize or understand.
Tob, I love this section. ATI found itself aware in the void. And not space/time void that is our experience but void of utter and complete nothingness. Truly terrifying. If there is nothing what comprised its consciousness? Some sort of energy must have been involved. But all energy we experience comes from source. So where then did source's energy come from. Especially as it was unaware before it became aware, so it could not make its own energy through consciousness? In a level close to the Godhead, know by Ra as 7th density there is threshold that is crossed. This point of crossing is experienced as a moment of utter profundity. I believe this is a critical point of revelation. Seth/Ra/Christ/Buddha etc do not know everything - no teachers do, what they basically know is how to expand consciousness to get to the next level. I believe that on our level of consciousness and even on the non physical we experience after death it is simply not possible to grasp the deepest mysteries of existence. No knowledge has ever been communicated from beyond this threshold (apart from 'it's incredible'). For me this contains the answers to the deepest mysteries of the universe. We don't know, and with our small little underdeveloped consciousnesses at this point in our becoming it is impossible for us to grasp this truth.
Bora, I've always believed that something had to precede ATI. I think it must have been either CUs or EEUs that formed ATI. Seth says that something might have preceded our God, possibly another God, but our God doesn't know. In my imagination, I see another Primary Energy Gestalt separating a small amount of energy from itself, and that is what creates a new PEG. There may in fact be a race of Gods, each one knowing only itself.
In my old age, I've come to see the Universe -- meaning the greater environment in which our God and others exist or may exist -- as being a magical place. The magic is that anything exists at all. Seth said that ATI doesn't know from what it arose. Because of this, and because logically there is no reason for anything to exist, existence is its own meaning. I remember Seth saying that every action in the Universe is an assertion of life against the nothingness that might have been. That's why I want a better understanding of CUs and EEUs, because they hold the secret of existence.
Actually, these are the issues that I came to this forum to explore. I thought others might have a better memory of what Seth said than I do.
Quote from: Bora137 on November 28, 2021, 02:35:20 PMTob, I love this section. ATI found itself aware in the void. And not space/time void that is our experience but void of utter and complete nothingness. Truly terrifying. If there is nothing what comprised its consciousness? Some sort of energy must have been involved. But all energy we experience comes from source. So where then did source's energy come from. Especially as it was unaware before it became aware, so it could not make its own energy through consciousness? In a level close to the Godhead, know by Ra as 7th density there is threshold that is crossed. This point of crossing is experienced as a moment of utter profundity. I believe this is a critical point of revelation. Seth/Ra/Christ/Buddha etc do not know everything - no teachers do, what they basically know is how to expand consciousness to get to the next level. I believe that on our level of consciousness and even on the non physical we experience after death it is simply not possible to grasp the deepest mysteries of existence. No knowledge has ever been communicated from beyond this threshold (apart from 'it's incredible'). For me this contains the answers to the deepest mysteries of the universe. We don't know, and with our small little underdeveloped consciousnesses at this point in our becoming it is impossible for us to grasp this truth.
Hi Bora, thanks for the post, I am afraid I cannot provide a meaningful reply as I am myself still in the process of bringing relevant bits and pieces together. Over years my main focus was the 'shifting, shifting shifting' - mantra and the physics which would or could underpin that. Tom Campbell's 'Virtual Reality Theory' seems to provide a solution which allows in addition to deal with dreams, various paranormal states and 'glitches in the matrix' etc.
When reading NoPR (towards the end), I was astonished to find statements according to which we will have instant access to all the information we need in the future (similar to Bashar: 'We know what we need to know when we need to know it'), channelling will be the standard form of communication (according to Seth we will know for sure whether distortions did occur or not), and we will be in constant communication with our parallel selves (i.e. all the other 'ordinary Joes') when humankind has proceeded in its physiological development, which has not yet come to an end (Seth). (In the same way as we successfully advanced from the evolutionary stages at which we were physically and biologically in need of an appendix). We will then be using more than the current 10 percent of our brain and we will be able to travel from one point in space to another without passing the distance (Seth in TES 2) by making use of the constant reproduction of the universe. Thus, Seth does know considerably more than we do but it is clear that he has his limits as well.
According to Bashar we are all individual facets of creation, 'I'-versions of 'All-that-is' which deliberately agreed to forget who we are in order to discover who we are from a new perspective, thereby contributing our unique experiences as 'added value' towards creation. We will all be able to experience ourselves one day as our 'I'- version of 'All-that-is' - at the level of 'All-that-is'. Our current life is just the beginning, the starting point. According to Seth we proceed once we understand that it is us who is producing the surrounding 'reality' (F1). Otherwise it would be too dangerous for us. We would not be able to understand what is going on.
Without overemphasizing it - this is a Seth-Forum - I think it is useful to approach Seth, Bashar, and Tom Campbell together.
One of the most encouraging statements is the last sentence of Seth in NoPR: 'Centuries before the beginning of what seems to have begun'. It requires pioneers to take his work forward (Seth), such as Jane Roberts and Robert Butts, but there is no hurry. It takes time to internalize and operationalize his teachings properly. 7000 pages (Seth) are a lot, but fortunately there is no deadline. As students we would have all agreed that centuries are a reasonable timeframe.
Quote from: Sena on November 28, 2021, 09:08:26 AMMy understanding is that Seth Two is one of the individual consciousnesses brought into being by All That Is (again with no passage of time), and therefore Seth Two did not have to face the Cosmic Dilemma. It is only All That Is, not the individual consciousnesses, which faced the Cosmic Dilemma.
Sena, Seth2 may be in the category of "more to know." I don't know but IF you look at this list again, it says (14) "We seeded your god."
It also says, "We gave you mental images and upon these images you learned to form the world that you know. We gave you the pattern by which your physical selves are formed. We gave you the pattern by which you learned to form your physical reality. We gave you the patterns intricate, involved and blessed from which you form the reality of each physical thing you know. The most minute cell within your brain has been made from the patterns of consciousness which we have given you. . We gave you the pattern upon which you formed your entire physical universe and the comprehension that exists within each cell, the knowledge that each cell has, the desire for organization was given by us. We are involved in forming creations, realities, consciousness -- worlds beyond your comprehension."
Barrie Comments: So, it surely does not seem that Seth2 is simply "one of the individual consciousnesses brought into being by All That Is.
Look again at this list:
1. We gave you mental images and upon these images you learned to form the world that you know.
2. We gave you the pattern by which your physical selves are formed.
3. We gave you the pattern by which you learned to form your physical reality.
4. We gave you the patterns intricate, involved and blessed from which you form the reality of each physical thing you know.
5. The most minute cell within your brain has been made from the patterns of consciousness which we have given you.
6. We gave you the pattern upon which you formed your entire physical universe and the comprehension that exists within each cell, the knowledge that each cell has, the desire for organization was given by us.
7. We are involved in forming creations, realities, consciousness -- worlds beyond your comprehension.
8. We form the realities, we give birth to universes.
9. We have always watched, we are the watchers and the protectors, and you have never been alone.
10. You are being allowed freedom within limits.
11. We are highly interested in such experiments as Seth is conducting.
12. We move through systems such as yours faster than the speed of light.
13. Since we seeded the universe in which you have your present existence then do we observe, and do we watch, and do we have concern.
14. We seeded your god.
Barrie Comments: I do know about simultaneous time.
I think the actuality also created linear time. There must have been some kind of time, maybe linear, in the ever growing probabilities.
But anyway, we use such words as
beginning, later etc, because we are also discussing linear time and/or using linear time's terms. In Seth's comments about the Cosmic Dilemma--
Seth uses the term "beginning" and "later" and he also knows about simultaneous time:Seth (Session 427): "Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness
before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means.
Barrie Comments: So sometimes these terms are just used when talking about human reality. Our whole language is steep in linear time--before, after, during, next, later, soon, first, last, etc etc. We do need a vocabulary to discuss F1.
By the way, this next quote, has Seth using linear terms, and implies the independent nature of these creatures within God's dream--as the probable realities kept growing.
Seth (Session 427): "...At
first, in your terms, all of probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within consciousness of All That Is.
Later the
unspecified nature of these "dreams," in quotes, grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became recognizable one from the other, until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is. And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more and more attention to his own dreams."
I'm no Seth expert Caleb and I have learnt a lot from Sena, Tob, Deb and others. I tend to read teachers and then try and find commonalities. Seth and Ra I love in equal measure.
Caleb:
Quote"In my old age, I've come to see the Universe -- meaning the greater environment in which our God and others exist or may exist -- as being a magical place. The magic is that anything exists at all. Seth said that ATI doesn't know from what it arose. Because of this, and because logically there is no reason for anything to exist, existence is its own meaning"
So I would say nothingness is impossible because it demands an observer in order to 'be'. As an observer you simply cannot know nothingness - because ofc you exist within it therefore you nullify it - haha. In a sense this relates to quantum mechanics (albeit this theory relates to our space/time plane) in that the observed changes by the fact of being observed.
Once you have an observer of nothingness you no longer have nothingness, so in a sense you could argue that nothingness negates itself - basically 'nothingness' is impossible. Or, in seeking validation of being nothing it creates something. I guess then though nothing requires some sort of consciousness so it is not nothing in the first place.
CUs and EEUs - l'm thinking do we need 'things' be they matter or meta-matter? This is where intuition finds its primacy over intellect. Only the intuition can truely 'know' I feel (intu). The above is what I might say if asked, I stand by none of it because basically I have no capacity to 'know' these things. This is a guesstimation from deep distortion. Someone said up-thread that do we live inside God or does she live inside us. Here we have a problem in that our meaning for the word 'inside' is draw from our 3d space/time illusion. We don't really know what the word inside means. Just like we don't know 'love' we just know a distortion of it. A lot like looking at the land from underwater. Is the land really like that all wavy and moving? No, but from our perspective it is and we go ahead and base all our theories and experiments on that foundation.
I do like the god of god idea but then you get the old chicken and egg thing which gets us nowhere in trying to establish the start of something.
Ra says this vibration is not the vibration of knowing and I agree with him. I know I know nothing about the nature of creation and I am very happy with that.
I completely agree with you though, magic is really the only word we can use. The magician starts everything as the tarot tells us.
Quote from: Bora137 on November 28, 2021, 02:35:20 PMTob, I love this section. ATI found itself aware in the void. And not space/time void that is our experience but void of utter and complete nothingness. Truly terrifying. If there is nothing what comprised its consciousness? Some sort of energy must have been involved. But all energy we experience comes from source. So where then did source's energy come from. Especially as it was unaware before it became aware, so it could not make its own energy through consciousness? In a level close to the Godhead, know by Ra as 7th density there is threshold that is crossed. This point of crossing is experienced as a moment of utter profundity. I believe this is a critical point of revelation. Seth/Ra/Christ/Buddha etc do not know everything - no teachers do, what they basically know is how to expand consciousness to get to the next level. I believe that on our level of consciousness and even on the non physical we experience after death it is simply not possible to grasp the deepest mysteries of existence. No knowledge has ever been communicated from beyond this threshold (apart from 'it's incredible'). For me this contains the answers to the deepest mysteries of the universe. We don't know, and with our small little underdeveloped consciousnesses at this point in our becoming it is impossible for us to grasp this truth.
I cannot provide a meaningful answer from the point of view of Seth. But using the concepts of Bashar, everything is created by the 'Prime Radiant', i.e. pure consciousness, which can be described as a 'particle', travelling at infinite speed, constantly criss-crossing itself. It is not subject to time and space. Time and space are subject to it. Where it is criss-crossing itself it is forming matter, the more often, the denser the matter at these points. CUs are parts of subatomic particles, in the end 'produced' (from the bottom up) by the 'Prime Radiant'. There is only this single 'particle'. Nothing else. And as everything is constructed by this single 'particle', which is everywhere at the same 'time', everything is 'here and now', including all our other lives, reincarnations, parallel realities, etc. Thus, the 'reincarnations' are 'here and now' as well, because the reincarnational reality is formed and materialized by the same 'here and now'- particle, and it is clear that you do not reincarnate. The reincarnational life is lived by another 'you'. You only live once. You are an indestructable part of 'All-that-is' with an 'I'-identity which will never be annihilated, not even by integration. And as you exist, there must be a reason for you to exist. Otherwise you would not exist, as existence does not make mistakes. The quality of existence is just: to exist. Non-existence does not exist. Otherwise it would be part of existence (Bashar). According to him, every single word that Seth is saying is correct, but terminology is used differently. What is 'sub' (conscious) in Seth's cosmology is 'up' in his, for example.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 28, 2021, 03:01:12 PMIn my old age, I've come to see the Universe -- meaning the greater environment in which our God and others exist or may exist -- as being a magical place. The magic is that anything exists at all. Seth said that ATI doesn't know from what it arose. Because of this, and because logically there is no reason for anything to exist, existence is its own meaning.
Please note: This is a
DISCUSSION and not an argument:
According to the Seth material,
there IS a reason for everything to exist. We created F1 so we can learn and evolve via many, many lifetimes--that we both create our own reality via our thoughts, beliefs, emotions and expectations--and in so doing we are to include helping and not harming others.
When we learn this, we leave the reincarnation cycle behind and move on to other realities that are more instant and intense.
Here Seth talks about the purpose of existence:
SETH (actually a Seth II quote from Session 446): "You are being allowed freedom within limits.
The human race is a state through which various forms of consciousness travel. The ideals keep the race pointed in beneficial directions. Thoughts and emotions form the basic. You learn by seeing these turn into physical reality. You may be killed by what you have created. If so, the lesson is doubly learned.
Before you can be allowed into systems of reality that are more extensive and open, you must first learn to handle energy, and see, through physical materializations, the CONCRETE RESULT of thought and emotion. As a child forms mud pies from dirt, so you form your civilization out of thoughts and emotions, and then see what you have created, and
you must deal with it ON ITS TERMS...In other systems, energy is more directly felt, more extensive. Consciousness has much more freedom in its utilization.
"The lessons must be properly learned before such responsibility...
When you leave the physical system after reincarnation, you have learned the lessons, and you are literally no longer a member of the human race in those terms, for you elect to leave it...In more advanced systems, thoughts and emotions are automatically and immediately translated into action, into whatever approximation of matter there exists. Therefore, the lessons must be taught and learned well." Barrie Comments: When it comes to our purpose of being physical, Seth often includes these comments about helping others or not hurting others--as a key component of YCROR.
Seth (Session 452:) "Man was not allowed to play with the more dangerous toys until certain evidence was given that he had gained some control. This does not mean that he could not destroy the world that he knew. It simply meant that such destruction was not inevitable. You do not give a child a loaded gun if you are certain he is going to shoot himself or his neighbor. Now the weapons and the destruction are the obvious things that you see. The counterparts are not so evident, and yet it is the counterparts that are important.
The self-discipline learned, the control, the compassion that finally is aroused, and the final and last lesson learned, the positive desire for creativity and love over destruction and hatred. When this is learned the reincarnational cycle is finished." Barrie Comments: Below Seth speaks again of the
vulnerability which exists in F1 (physical reality) and
ITS purpose--and how it
ties into OUR purpose:
Seth (Session 498): "Your ego is now focused within this reality...
it is from this system that the greatest potentials emerge; for having dealt with it, consciousness undergoes one of the severest tests in learning to handle its own energy. "The horror and the results of mismanagement, and the VULNERABILITY; are the teaching methods that each consciousness has accepted before entering your system. There is no way out but to learn or to ruin the entire system. In no other field of reality are the terms so drastic. For this reason the inner self withholds much of its knowledge. There must be no leaning upon the very basic fact that behind and within the system there is relief. You must believe in the physical reality and accept the VULNERABILITY.
"Now, from your system spring some of the most advanced of all identities. They go on and learn from other realities, granted, but yours is the hardest to manage, and those who accept it go off into a certain line of development where the potentials are beyond anything of which you can presently conceive... (499)...while in your reality you are VULNERABLE, agony is real, still it is not the whole reality, and success and failure have no meaning in those (underlined) terms."
Barrie Comments: Please note: This is a
DISCUSSION and not an argument:
Sorry, I'm going to bounce around a bit here. I've been dealing with computer issues for the past couple of days, and am behind here.
Quote from: Tob/Seth Material on November 28, 2021, 08:27:47 AM"When I speak of All That Is, you must understand my position within It. All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself..."
I remember reading that in the book and I didn't really react to it at the time, just accepted it, but in a way it's really mind-blowing. Over the years I've come to envision ATI to be literally all that is. Seth didn't profess to know it all, and apparently ATI doesn't either. In a reality that has no beginning and no end, and no limit of probabilities... I'm sure there's a lot more than we can fathom.
Quote from: barrie on November 28, 2021, 04:29:25 PMSena, Seth2 may be in the category of "more to know." I don't know but IF you look at this list again, it says (14) "We seeded your god."
It's hard to not think in terms of hierarchy when I think about the information coming from Seth, and then the collective Seth II. Seth III was so far out there, Jane couldn't even get anything from it other than sensing it's existence. I imagine there could be Seth IV, V, etc.
From a Rochester Group recording via Rich Kendall's collection:
(Seth II:) We are Seth and we speak to those portions of your being who have not known physical lives, or rather, we speak for those portions who have not known physical lives. For each of you have counterparts who are aliens to physical reality and those counterparts watch. Those counterparts helped form your system and seeded your entities which have grown apart from ours, though still belonging. We have different reality yet we keep track of you. Translations are difficult. Your emotions grow like flowers from your being... alien to us. We marvel and water on your flesh(?). [Must have been a transcription problem here.]
(Jane then felt an effect she called Seth III, although she said it was impossible for her to verbalize it.) [She actually said a bit more about the event, in her impromptu graphic way. I can share more if anyone is interested.]
(Seth:) Now we will let our friend down gently as always and return him to you.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 28, 2021, 06:53:26 AMI have to say this, though: The impression that I was left with from reading the books is that physicality is more the exception than the norm in the universe, meaning the greater Whole that contains the multiple universes within it. But we can't be sure because Seth didn't give us percentages.
That's been my impression too. I feel like I need to re-read all of the books I've read, seeing as how when I first read them I was new to the concepts and not everything stuck in my mind. I do remember Seth explaining that our physical universe is only one of a great variety of systems, some physical, some not, and probably even more that we can't even conceptualize since our Earthly POV is limited to physical or not.
Quote from: Bora137 on November 28, 2021, 05:04:29 PMCUs and EEUs - l'm thinking do we need 'things' be they matter or meta-matter? This is where intuition finds its primacy over intellect.
I'd still like to explore CUs and EEUs a bit more. Just as a heads up, Caleb did start a new topic about this (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,2553.msg21076.html#msg21076) about a week ago and I think it got buried due to this current topic being in such focus. We can continue discussion of them here, or move the CU/EE stuff over there, or I can merge those few posts over to here... I'm easy. Caleb, any preference? This forum has always had a stream of consciousness flow to it which I enjoy. I'm just glad the Search function works fairly well.
Quote from: Tob on November 28, 2021, 09:58:12 AMAs he was also referring to some earlier statements regarding such pyramid gestalts, I tried to look them up, but there was nothing in TES1. I thought maybe these passages do exist but were deleted to keep the books more legible.
That's where the Seth search engine comes in handy. It did come up with a little more, but not all of the books are in the search engine... such as Jane's and Sue's books. I do have access to a bunch of unpublished material, will check that tomorrow to see if there's anything more to add.
https://findingseth.com/q/exact:'pyramid+gestalt'/
Quote from: Bora137 on November 28, 2021, 02:35:20 PMATI found itself aware in the void. And not space/time void that is our experience but void of utter and complete nothingness. Truly terrifying. If there is nothing what comprised its consciousness?
Bora, thanks for pointing out that ATI may have been "terrified". It stands to reason that ATI experiences all the emotions that we ourselves experience. Unlike the goody-goody Christian God who probably has never experienced fear.
Quote from: barrie on November 28, 2021, 04:29:25 PMSena, Seth2 may be in the category of "more to know." I don't know but IF you look at this list again, it says (14) "We seeded your god."
Barrie, it is significant that your quote refers to "god", not the big "God". My understanding of Seth is that we are all have the potential of becoming gods.
"There is no personal god-individual in Christian terms and yet you do have access to a portion of All That Is, that is highly attuned to you only above all others.
In this respect, you see, there is a personal god, if those are the words you use. There is a portion of All That Is, that is directed and focused upon every individual consciousness. A portion of All That Is resides within and is a part of every consciousness. Every consciousness is therefore cherished and protected individually. There are automatic electromagnetic connections that exist here."
—TES7 Session 311 January 11,1967
"Now. He has been given a highly important symbol which stands in his psyche for the meaning of truth. But each of you are, in your way, to become as gods and accept that awesome responsibility. Now you notice I said to become as gods—and note the plural. There is a unity that unites all plurals."
—TECS2 ESP Class Session, April 21, 1970
There is a lot to respond to here. First of all, I am not accustomed to doing this much reading. Reading is actually work for me; and although it opens up worlds of ideas to me, I'm still surviving on the ideas I read years ago (in the Material).
I also realize about myself that I have a tendency to read the Material and then neatly package it in my mind, but you have all made me realize that it cannot be packaged quite so neatly. I have developed a tidy set of explanations for reality (which I imagine I would use to convert other people to the Material); but my tidy explanations don't always hold up when I read the Material (but for the most part, they are surviving re-examination).
Bora, the ideas that you shared are the kind that I have a tendency to reject -- e.g., the idea that nothingness cannot exist unless it has an observer; and that the presence of the observer means that nothingness doesn't actually exist. Seth, if I recall correctly, said (or implied) that "zero" is a concept that doesn't actually exist. There is existence only (or theoretical nonexistence); and much of existence exists as probabilities that haven't come to fruition.
Barrie, for once I appreciate all of your quotes from the Material. They reminded me of how incredibly lucid Seth was. He NEVER spoke in circles. That's why I view the Material as the only reliable source of truth in this camouflage world. However, I'd find your posts easier to digest if you would stop saying "Barrie Comments:" and instead say "My thoughts:".
Oh, one thing I want to add is that over the years, I got the impression that our material plane of existence is not very advanced nor important, but Barrie's quotes from the Material has changed my thinking. The work we are doing here is more important than I realized. In this plane, in which our immortality and true spiritual natures are disguised, the adventures we get up to have more importance than I realized (according to Seth). At times physical reality seems chaotic -- what with all the violence and greed, and with so many people now denying reality and truth -- but it seems there is an important purpose to the chaos. Thanks, Barrie (and thanks, Seth).
Deb, I started the other thread in order to have some of the discussions that I am now having in this thread (which, not long ago, seemed to have degenerated into bickering, although I don't want to be judgemental). I'd still like to pursue that other thread, but I am looking for information in the books now about CUs and EEUs -- and that means that I have started to re-read the books. But I can't devote all my days to it. I am probably living the last ten years of my life now, and I want to enjoy some of it, and not just feel that I am back in Seth School. Although I regard myself as an intellectual, and I often imagined reading all of the Seth books and writing a book of my own about the Material, I don't have the kind of intense focus required to do that much reading/writing. I am a poet, and prefer to channel my creativity into poetry as much as I can.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 29, 2021, 12:13:54 AMI'd find your posts easier to digest if you would stop saying "Barrie Comments:" and instead say "My thoughts:".
Hi Caleb, I'm glad we are now on the same page, so to speak, regarding my posts and Seth quotes.
Allow me to clarify just one thing. I don't write "
my thoughts" or "
me" or "
my comments" or "
I say" -- for one reason and one reason. It is
solely because when things get cut and paste in ongoing back-and-forth discussions--it very soon gets lost and confused about who is the "me" of me; the "I" of I, and/or the "my" of "my comments." So, for the sake of clarification, I have long ago learned to clarify who said what quote--including me.
Example: IF I wrote, "my comment" and then someone cut and paste what I wrote in order to respond to...then THAT person would inadvertantly be writing "my comment" when he was referring to me, Barrie, Barrie's comment. So, IF he just cut and paste "my comment" -- then who actually is being referred to by "my" -- does get easily lost and confused.
So, that is why I write: Barrie Comments; Caleb Comments or whoever it is I am responding to...for only THEN can people--be clear about who has said what.
Again, I am very glad we are now in an understanding and agreement in regard to my posts.
Be well,
Barrie
The forum software takes care of all that. You'll note that when you quoted me directly above, it says: "Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 28, 2021, 10:13:54 PM".
Quote from: Deb on November 28, 2021, 07:44:39 PMThat's where the Seth search engine comes in handy. It did come up with a little more, but not all of the books are in the search engine... such as Jane's and Sue's books. I do have access to a bunch of unpublished material, will check that tomorrow to see if there's anything more to add.
https://findingseth.com/q/exact:'pyramid+gestalt'/
Yes, that is my impression as well from reading TES1 and TES2. A lot of material seems to be missing. There were sessions where Seth was hardly able to transmit 5 or 6 sentences and then suddenly he was transmitting pages and pages of material. It would be extremely useful to have access to the session where he mentioned the pyramid gestalts of consciousness for the first time. It should become clear from that very first introduction of this concept what the relationship is between those gestalts, the CUs, ATI (or ATIs), and the concept of God. These passages are missing. The search engine does not really help. The same applies to the core mechanism of reality production. Suddenly the word 'quandrants' appears without any further explanation. As the quandrants seem to be of utmost importance for understanding the individualized production of F1 universes - moment for moment for moment - it is obvious that crucial text is missing.
Seth's main message is that a) there is a neutral reality production mechanism (making use of mental genes, mental enzymes, quandrants, CU's - which function as black and white holes - EE units, pre-physical and post-physical production of realities, antimatter universes, etc.). The smooth introduction into these concepts seems to be missing. Quandrants are a key concept. 'Cubes' play a role. And b) we can benefit from the knowledge of this neutral reality production mechanism by changing the vibrations of our belief systems. We are then able to produce the reality we prefer to be in. The description how has been provided in NoPR. Some may or may not be calling this then 'shifting'.
I read somewhere that there is a Seth statement according to which the whole material will have been published one day. I assume he knew more in that regard and that's why he came forward with such a generous timeframe: 'centuries before the beginning of what seems to have begun'.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 29, 2021, 05:26:55 AMThe forum software takes care of all that. You'll note that when you quoted me directly above, it says: "Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 28, 2021, 10:13:54 PM".
Yes, Caleb, but not in the text of other parts of
ongoing back-and-forth posts. Look at this shortened sample and of a back-and-forth with Sena:
------------------
Sena Writes: This is where we differ.
B
arrie Responds: I believe I had already partially inadvertantly addressed this...before your post. So FIRST let's look at what I had written on 11-24-21. You posted your comments to me on 11-25-21.
-----------------
Barrie Had Written (11-24-21) "For those who like it short and sweet...my thoughts at this moment: I believe that the Cosmic Dilemma concerned creating F1.
-----------------
Barrie Now Responds: So, let's bring this back to your 11-25-21 post and I'll answer you as we go along: I believe I have summed up both of our positions. If not, please clarify.
Sena Continues: My understanding of the Seth teaching is that we all existed in the "spirit world" (? Framework 2) before we decided to opt for physical existence. Some personalities may never decide to opt for physical existence.
Barrie Responds: Given what you say here, I agree with. We all exist in the timeless F2--and from there we send forth our focal personalities into the various linear time periods in F1. I'm not sure about these answers yet. But they are very interesting to ponder.
Sena Continues: Did Seth Two ever have physical existence?
Barrie Comments: Seth2 is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. In a totally different ball park.
According to Seth, Seth2 gave us the blue-prints about how to create F1 in the first place. Taught us HOW to create our own reality within F1. Look at what Seth2 said in class:
Seth2 (ESP Class, 7-19-71): "Our perception allows us to tune into the particular fantasies that you perceive as one indivisible reality.
Barrie Comments: Jane could only go so far to "reach" S2...and could not directly reach Seth2. Besides that, Seth2 had no language or thoughts we could recognize.
----------------------
Barrie NOW Comments: This back-and-forth above is not covered in this forum's software. Also, other forums don't have any software that covers it. This is an excellent way to keep track in an on-going back-and-forth concerning who said what to whom. I've tried many ways over the decades and this is the most clear way in ongoing back-and-forths.
Otherwise, as I said
it gets lost who is referred say when you say "
my comment" or "
I said.'
Quote from: Tob on November 30, 2021, 02:58:57 AM. It would be extremely useful to have access to the session where he mentioned the pyramid gestalts of consciousness for the first time. It should become clear from that very first introduction of this concept what the relationship is between those gestalts, the CUs, ATI (or ATIs), and the concept of God. These passages are missing
These passages are not missing:
These are Seth's first five mentions of "gestalt" in regard to personalities merging. It's getting too late for me to continue now. I've been doing this for more than two hours and its 5 am. So, take a look, enjoy and do further research if you can.
Seth (Session 27, 2-19-64): "As I have said, the human being is more than the sum of its parts, and you two together are more than just the two of you, and you together provide the needed power for these communications to take place. But I do not want to go further into this right now. The procedure will remain the same for quite a while. Changes will not occur until you are ready and prepared for them, and the material itself will prepare you. I cannot go further into this now because I have not given you the principles involved as yet.
What we will have when this happens is a gestalt, with no lessening of your individualities at all, but a merging that will bring greater abilities.Seth (Session 29, 2-26-64): "Needless to say I wanted you to know that there is much more than even this, complexities that are truly astounding, intelligences that operate in what I suppose you would call a
gestalt fashion, building blocks of vitalities of truly unbelievable maturity, awareness and comprehension. These are the near ultimate... The small mention I made of the astounding gestalt building blocks of massive intelligence is also very important.Seth (Session 33, 3-6-64):
Rob Asks: "I was thinking that you have control of the trance state then, with Ruburt's permission. "
Seth Responds: Always with Ruburt's permission, and for that matter indirectly with your permission, for if Ruburt sensed you were against such a circumstance he would not give permission.
There is here a gestalt and a delicate balance among us. Seth (Session 42, 4-8-64): "These sessions represent quite an accomplishment on both of your parts, and you do use your inner senses to some important degree. Otherwise the material would not come through with any dependability.
We have here what amounts to a gestalt of a kind. It is natural that your energies rise and ebb, and this is to be expected. To some degree I am able to reinforce your energies, and I do as you may have suspected."
Seth (Session 45, 4-20-64): "Without your confidence and intuitive affirmation, much of this material would be blocked on Ruburt's part, Joseph, and Ruburt depends strongly upon inner strengths that you possess, and of which you are mainly ignorant.
We will go into the mechanisms involved in our gestalt at a later time, and we will make the whole matter plain.Barrie Comments: Here, Seth first mentions "pyramids" in regard to "intelligent energy":
Seth (SESSION 59, 6-3-64)" You have seen that the ego is a building block. It never becomes less than a unit, and may become mote. The fragments that may develop from it do not make it less. At one time I mentioned
massive units or blocks of intelligent energy, pyramids of psychic comprehensions, of which I cannot tell you too much at this time; but perhaps you can begin to perceive now how such comprehensions could be formed.
Barrie Comments: Seth's first mention of "gestalt personalities"
--------------------
Seth (Session 81, 8-26-64): "The God myth enabled him, man, to give his higher so called instincts an objectivity, and the God concept represented and still represents a link with the inner self.
Now. As far as hard facts are concerned, there is no God as mankind has envisioned him, and yet God once existed as mankind now envisions him.
(Jane smiled.)
What he is now is not what the religious think he is. Yet once he was only what they think he is now. For in fact he did evolve, and was not complete, but represented a supreme will to be from the beginning.
He is not human in your terms, though he passed through human stages; and here the Buddhist's myth comes closest to approximating reality.
He is not one individual, in your terms, but is a psychic gestalt, an energy gestalt.If you will remember what I have said about the way in which the universe expands, that has nothing to do with space, then you may perhaps perceive, though dimly,
the existence of a psychic pyramid of interrelated, ever-expanding consciousness that creates simultaneously and instantaneously universes and individuals that are given, through the gifts of personal perspectives, duration, intelligence, psychic comprehension, and eternal validity.It is this that your God concept hints at.
Now. This
absolute, ever expanding, instantaneous psychic gestalt, which you may call God, if you prefer, is so secure in its existence now that it can constantly break itself down and rebuild itself. Its energy is so unbelievable that it does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes and all planes and all fields, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for it is each sparrow that falls.
----------------------
Seth (Session 108, 11-18-64): "I have told you that energy always regenerates itself, but the implications here psychically are astounding, as the inward energy forms gestalt after gestalt; and each gestalt itself then continues to go on, itself regenerating, forming new personalities which are never destroyed.
The entities, like master memory cells, store knowledge of its, or their,
gestalt personalities; and even these entities are often split in many pieces, and each segment retains the complete data that belonged to the original entity.
Seth (Session 128, 2-3-65): "These personality intensities are themselves formed within ranges that would appear minute, but contain within them, truly, eons of experience. In our further discussions concerning the nature of electrical reality, we will also come closer to an understanding of those
pyramid gestalts of which I have spoken. (See the 81st session for some material on psychic pyramid gestalts.)
Is Seth talking about Seth2 here and/or his "peers"
Seth (Session 81, 8-26-64): "The God myth enabled him, man, to give his higher so called instincts an objectivity, and the God concept represented and still represents a link with the inner self.
"Now. As far as hard facts are concerned, there is no God as mankind has envisioned him, and yet God once existed as mankind now envisions him.
"(Jane smiled.)
"What he is now is not what the religious think he is. Yet once he was only what they think he is now. For in fact he did evolve, and was not complete, but represented a supreme will to be from the beginning.
He is not human in your terms, though he passed through human stages; and here the Buddhist's myth comes closest to approximating reality. He is not one individual, in your terms, but is a psychic gestalt, an energy gestalt.
"If you will remember what I have said about the way in which the universe expands, that has nothing to do with space, then you may perhaps perceive, though dimly, the existence of a psychic pyramid of interrelated, ever-expanding consciousness that creates simultaneously and instantaneously universes and individuals that are given, through the gifts of personal perspectives, duration, intelligence, psychic comprehension, and eternal validity.
"It is this that your God concept hints at.
"Now. This absolute, ever expanding, instantaneous psychic gestalt, which you may call God, if you prefer, is so secure in its existence now that it can constantly break itself down and rebuild itself.
"Its energy is so unbelievable that it does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes and all planes and all fields, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for it is each sparrow that falls."
Quote from: barrie on November 30, 2021, 05:15:44 AMQuote from: Tob on November 30, 2021, 02:58:57 AM. It would be extremely useful to have access to the session where he mentioned the pyramid gestalts of consciousness for the first time. It should become clear from that very first introduction of this concept what the relationship is between those gestalts, the CUs, ATI (or ATIs), and the concept of God. These passages are missing
These passages are not missing:
These are Seth's first five mentions of "gestalt" in regard to personalities merging. It's getting too late for me to continue now. I've been doing this for more than two hours and its 5 am. So, take a look, enjoy and do further research if you can.
Seth (Session 27, 2-19-64): "As I have said, the human being is more than the sum of its parts, and you two together are more than just the two of you, and you together provide the needed power for these communications to take place. But I do not want to go further into this right now. The procedure will remain the same for quite a while. Changes will not occur until you are ready and prepared for them, and the material itself will prepare you. I cannot go further into this now because I have not given you the principles involved as yet. What we will have when this happens is a gestalt, with no lessening of your individualities at all, but a merging that will bring greater abilities.
Seth (Session 29, 2-26-64): "Needless to say I wanted you to know that there is much more than even this, complexities that are truly astounding, intelligences that operate in what I suppose you would call a gestalt fashion, building blocks of vitalities of truly unbelievable maturity, awareness and comprehension. These are the near ultimate... The small mention I made of the astounding gestalt building blocks of massive intelligence is also very important.
This is exactly the point. If these are the first two paragraphs (above) where he mentioned the pyramid gestalts, something seems to be missing. He is referring to 'a small mention of astounding gestalt building blocks of massive intelligence'. Obviously not the functional 'gestalt of interactions' developing between him, Jane Roberts and Robert Butts, mentioned in the first paragraph.
After reading in another post that there is still a considerable amount of material which has not yet been published, I was hoping that there was more that could help clarify the issue. But thanks a lot for your efforts.
Quote from: Tob on November 30, 2021, 10:24:06 AMAfter reading in another post that there is still a considerable amount of material which has not yet been published, I was hoping that there was more that could help clarify the issue.
I did search the unpublished material (about 300 pages) and if I can trust the search engine there is nothing in there about pyramid gestalt. There are also several years of unpublished early class sessions, nothing in there either.
But in the process, I did find several references in some unexpected places and will put them together, along with the quotes already provided here, in my old "Seth On" non-public board. In date or session order, of course.
I'll get it together as soon as I can, and post the link here.
Quote from: Deb on November 30, 2021, 12:41:55 PMQuote from: Tob on November 30, 2021, 10:24:06 AMAfter reading in another post that there is still a considerable amount of material which has not yet been published, I was hoping that there was more that could help clarify the issue.
I did search the unpublished material (about 300 pages) and if I can trust the search engine there is nothing in there about pyramid gestalt. There are also several years of unpublished early class sessions, nothing in there either.
But in the process, I did find several references in some unexpected places and will put them together, along with the quotes already provided here, in my old "Seth On" non-public board. In date or session order, of course.
I'll get it together as soon as I can, and post the link here.
Thank you. Not really so urgent. I will continue working on the interface between F2 and F1. I am not so keen on '-isms' anyway. The 'quandrants' seem to be important.
Quote from: Tob on November 28, 2021, 05:28:33 PMThus, the 'reincarnations' are 'here and now' as well, because the reincarnational reality is formed and materialized by the same 'here and now'- particle, and it is clear that you do not reincarnate. The reincarnational life is lived by another 'you'. You only live once.
Tob, thanks for this and the rest of the section about there existing only one partical. This must be in a very high level abstract sense that bears no relation to our actual experience though?
Quote from: Bora137 on November 30, 2021, 02:15:07 PMTob, thanks for this and the rest of the section about there existing only one partical. This must be in a very high level abstract sense that bears no relation to our actual experience though?
This idea of there being only one particle, unlimited by time or space, popped into my head some months ago, long before I read it here. The idea, if true, supports the idea of the holographic universe because that one particle would clearly know everything there is to know in the universe - it would
be the universe. And yes, Bora, my sense is that while it is fun and interesting to think about, it has no impact on practical day-to-day matters.
Quote from: Bora137 on November 30, 2021, 02:15:07 PMQuote from: Tob on November 28, 2021, 05:28:33 PMThus, the 'reincarnations' are 'here and now' as well, because the reincarnational reality is formed and materialized by the same 'here and now'- particle, and it is clear that you do not reincarnate. The reincarnational life is lived by another 'you'. You only live once.
Tob, thanks for this and the rest of the section about there existing only one partical. This must be in a very high level abstract sense that bears no relation to our actual experience though?
Yes, in a sense I think this is a proper formulation (still with the general caveat that theoretically any of such teachings could be nonsense in a very cleverly arranged form). In the Seth material you find a formulation according to which reincarnation 'does and doesn't exist' (UR). It has more to do with a constant cross-fertilization of various lifetimes (which in the end all occur at the same 'time', as time doesn't exist). Reincarnational lives are then lived by other versions of you that are part of the greater 'You' that you are. Similar to parallel selves (Robert Butts who died as a child, Robert Butts who died as a pilot in WWII, etc.) The Robert Butts we know of has nothing to do with the Robert Butts who died as a child. Thus, the conundrum of what happens with your former 'I'-identity at the the moment of the beginning of the 'next' incarnation is solved. It is another version of 'You', i.e.: another part of your entity/oversoul.
Ok thanks Tob. I'm still struggling but sort of grasp I think
Quote from: Bora137 on November 30, 2021, 03:12:07 PMOk thanks Tob. I'm still struggling but sort of grasp I think
The single particle would be forming CUs, EEs, subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, cellular structures, your brain and your mind. It is synonymous with creation, which is formed by pure consciousness. On a personal level it does not matter whether there is such a single 'particle' or or any other agent or driving force. (If you bring in '-ism's', problems arise and things can become unfriendly or even deadly). The single 'particle' would be an extremely elegant solution. In physics scientists KNOW that their research is correct when their formulas are getting simpler and simpler.
In a way it is similar to the teachings of Seth, where the CU's (consciousness units) are forming energy units, which are then the basis for the creation of matter. The holographic principle applies here as well. It is a re-assurance against the inadvertent destruction of parts of creation (Seth).
"If you remember that beneath all, each unit of consciousness is aware of the position of each other unit, and that these units form all physical matter, then perhaps you can intuitively follow what I mean, for whatever knowledge man attains, whatever experience any one person accumulates, whatever arts or sciences you produce, all such information is instantly perceived at other levels of activity by each of the other units of consciousness that compose physical reality—whether those units form the shape of a rock, a raindrop, an apple, a cat, a frog or a shoe. Manufactured products are also composed of atoms and molecules that ride upon units of consciousness transformed into EE units, and hence into physical elements."
—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 890, December 19, 1979
Quote from: tob on November 30, 2021, 02:15:07 PMThus, the 'reincarnations' are 'here and now' as well, because the reincarnational reality is formed and materialized by the same 'here and now'- particle, and it is clear that you do not reincarnate. The reincarnational life is lived by another 'you'. You only live once.
Barrie Responds: According to the Seth material, we don't only live once. We live forever. The personality never end, dies or gets swallowed up by anything--and the infinite numbers of probable realities of that personality also continue.
There is no end.
"You" are one of many focal personalities sent forth in agreement with all others and the Oversoul. You continue and you are a part of and tied to ALL the other focal personalities and Oversoul and all of EVERYONE'S INFINITE probable and dream realities.
You DO have one life, in this fashion, tied to everything else and all the probable and dream realities--in the historical time period you are born into. You never can go back to that exact historical time frame again.
Quote from: Tob on November 30, 2021, 10:24:06 AMThis is exactly the point. If these are the first two paragraphs (above) where he mentioned the pyramid gestalts, something seems to be missing. He is referring to 'a small mention of astounding gestalt building blocks of massive intelligence'. Obviously not the functional 'gestalt of interactions' developing between him, Jane Roberts and Robert Butts, mentioned in the first paragraph.
Barrie Comments:
In Session 29, Seth refers to the small mention of gestalts EARLIER in the same Session 29:BELOW is the whole section of Session 29 in question--carrying the TWO references. Note that one brief comment comes first, followed by the other at the end of the excerpt. In this longer version below, I put the TWO mentions in
bold and I left in the page number:
Seth (Session 29): "Q u a n d r a n t s, will not concern you for quite some time. Needless to say I wanted you to know that there is much more than even this, complexities that are truly astounding, intelligences that operate in what I suppose you would call a
gestalt fashion, building blocks of vitalities of truly unbelievable maturity, awareness and comprehension. These are the near ultimate."I suggest a break. The material is such that it is difficult. I do not want to overstrain Ruburt with it.
(Break at 10:55, Jane's voice was getting tired by now. During the past two monologues she had been fairly well dissociated. She could feel Seth trying to get the material through without overloading her, she could feel him trying to get her to use the right words. It was as though, she said. Seth was stretching her brain in an effort to get the material through.
(The nature of this material of course led Jane and I to speculate a little bit, during break, about the fact that what we had as a species, and indeed the species itself might be quite impermanent. Being personally interested in such things. we talked of the perhaps intrinsic impermanence of all of our works of art, whether it be painting, music, literature, etc. Resume at 11:04.)
"This material should not make you feel unimportant or insignificant. The
230
framework is so woven that each particle is dependent upon every other. The strength of one adds strength to all. The weakness of one weakens the whole. The energy of one recreates the whole. The striving of one increases the potentiality of everything that is, and this places great responsibility upon every consciousness.
"I would even advise a double reading of the above sentence for it is a keystone and a vital one. Rising to challenges is a basis for existence in every aspect of existence. It is the developer of all abilities and at the risk of being trite, it is the responsibility of even the most minute particle of consciousness to use its own abilities, and all of its abilities to the utmost. Upon the degree to which this is done rests the power and coherence of everything that is.
"I have given you so much new material this evening that I will end the session shortly. You will see that we are getting as much material as before, that is as much actual material, and in lesser amounts of time."
("I noticed that.")
(Indeed, Jane and I had both been strongly aware that Seth was evidently doing something with respect to time, during the last few sessions. The peculiar thing is that while the session is underway neither of us is aware of any change. It is only at a break, for instance, that we will notice the amount of material we have taken in half an hour or thereabouts. Without running actual physical tests for comparison, we seem to accumulate quite a bit more than would usually be possible without going at top speed. Yet during a session Jane while talking steadily, nevertheless pauses often, and I am no longer pressed to write at top speed to keep up with her.)
(By now, Jane was quite tired. Her voice was low, and her pace much slower.)
"The small mention I made of the astounding gestalt building blocks of massive intelligence is also very important."
Quote from: barrie on November 30, 2021, 11:11:22 PMQuote from: tob on November 30, 2021, 02:15:07 PMThus, the 'reincarnations' are 'here and now' as well, because the reincarnational reality is formed and materialized by the same 'here and now'- particle, and it is clear that you do not reincarnate. The reincarnational life is lived by another 'you'. You only live once.
Barrie Responds: According to the Seth material, we don't only live once. We live forever. The personality never end, dies or gets swallowed up by anything--and the infinite numbers of probable realities of that personality also continue.
There is no end.
"You" are one of many focal personalities sent forth in agreement with all others and the Oversoul. You continue and you are a part of and tied to ALL the other focal personalities and Oversoul and all of EVERYONE'S INFINITE probable and dream realities.
You DO have one life, in this fashion, tied to everything else and all the probable and dream realities--in the historical time period you are born into. You never can go back to that exact historical time frame again.
We don't live forever. We die. We (may) exist forever. The question was whether we do reincarnate.
Quote from: barrie on November 30, 2021, 11:27:36 PMQuote from: Tob on November 30, 2021, 10:24:06 AMThis is exactly the point. If these are the first two paragraphs (above) where he mentioned the pyramid gestalts, something seems to be missing. He is referring to 'a small mention of astounding gestalt building blocks of massive intelligence'. Obviously not the functional 'gestalt of interactions' developing between him, Jane Roberts and Robert Butts, mentioned in the first paragraph.
Barrie Comments: In Session 29, Seth refers to the small mention of gestalts EARLIER in the same Session 29:
BELOW is the whole section of Session 29 in question--carrying the TWO references. Note that one brief comment comes first, followed by the other at the end of the excerpt. In this longer version below, I put the TWO mentions in bold and I left in the page number:
Seth (Session 29): "Q u a n d r a n t s, will not concern you for quite some time. Needless to say I wanted you to know that there is much more than even this, complexities that are truly astounding, intelligences that operate in what I suppose you would call a gestalt fashion, building blocks of vitalities of truly unbelievable maturity, awareness and comprehension. These are the near ultimate.
"I suggest a break. The material is such that it is difficult. I do not want to overstrain Ruburt with it.
(Break at 10:55, Jane's voice was getting tired by now. During the past two monologues she had been fairly well dissociated. She could feel Seth trying to get the material through without overloading her, she could feel him trying to get her to use the right words. It was as though, she said. Seth was stretching her brain in an effort to get the material through.
(The nature of this material of course led Jane and I to speculate a little bit, during break, about the fact that what we had as a species, and indeed the species itself might be quite impermanent. Being personally interested in such things. we talked of the perhaps intrinsic impermanence of all of our works of art, whether it be painting, music, literature, etc. Resume at 11:04.)
"This material should not make you feel unimportant or insignificant. The
230
framework is so woven that each particle is dependent upon every other. The strength of one adds strength to all. The weakness of one weakens the whole. The energy of one recreates the whole. The striving of one increases the potentiality of everything that is, and this places great responsibility upon every consciousness.
"I would even advise a double reading of the above sentence for it is a keystone and a vital one. Rising to challenges is a basis for existence in every aspect of existence. It is the developer of all abilities and at the risk of being trite, it is the responsibility of even the most minute particle of consciousness to use its own abilities, and all of its abilities to the utmost. Upon the degree to which this is done rests the power and coherence of everything that is.
"I have given you so much new material this evening that I will end the session shortly. You will see that we are getting as much material as before, that is as much actual material, and in lesser amounts of time."
("I noticed that.")
(Indeed, Jane and I had both been strongly aware that Seth was evidently doing something with respect to time, during the last few sessions. The peculiar thing is that while the session is underway neither of us is aware of any change. It is only at a break, for instance, that we will notice the amount of material we have taken in half an hour or thereabouts. Without running actual physical tests for comparison, we seem to accumulate quite a bit more than would usually be possible without going at top speed. Yet during a session Jane while talking steadily, nevertheless pauses often, and I am no longer pressed to write at top speed to keep up with her.)
(By now, Jane was quite tired. Her voice was low, and her pace much slower.)
"The small mention I made of the astounding gestalt building blocks of massive intelligence is also very important."
Thanks, yes you are right.
Given the fact that each and everything seems to be a gestalt in his system it is not clear what is the difference between the 'astounding gestalt building blocks of massive intelligence' and the gestalt of interaction between him and Jane Roberts and Robert Butts.
In particular it is not clear whether these huge gestalt pyramids of 'incredible maturity' are somehow synonymous with ATI, or ATIs, etc. And how conglomerates of CUs can form or build up such a 'gestalt'.
The 'Quandrants' have only been mentioned once, in the same paragraph with the 'building blocks of unbelievable 'vitality', and in addition he is referring to 'vitality' which seems to be replaced later in his teachings by 'energy' and 'consciousness'.
This is too much in one single paragraph. I thought there was more in the deleted sessions.
Thanks again.
Quote from: Tob on December 01, 2021, 02:28:33 AMQuote from: barrie on November 30, 2021, 11:11:22 PMQuote from: tob on November 30, 2021, 02:15:07 PMThus, the 'reincarnations' are 'here and now' as well, because the reincarnational reality is formed and materialized by the same 'here and now'- particle, and it is clear that you do not reincarnate. The reincarnational life is lived by another 'you'. You only live once.
Barrie Responds: According to the Seth material, we don't only live once. We live forever. The personality never end, dies or gets swallowed up by anything--and the infinite numbers of probable realities of that personality also continue.
There is no end.
"You" are one of many focal personalities sent forth in agreement with all others and the Oversoul. You continue and you are a part of and tied to ALL the other focal personalities and Oversoul and all of EVERYONE'S INFINITE probable and dream realities.
You DO have one life, in this fashion, tied to everything else and all the probable and dream realities--in the historical time period you are born into. You never can go back to that exact historical time frame again.
We don't live forever. We die. We (may) exist forever. The question was whether we do reincarnate.
From Session 728: "While mountains generally maintain a more or less permanent position, in your terms, the vegetation that grows on the different levels changes. New flowers come each spring. You may always find a patch of violets in the same general position in the foothills each year, for example; yet they are not the same violets that grew last season, or that will appear next season. The pattern for those flowers serves to seed each new batch. All kinds of alterations also take place in the soil beneath the mountain's layers. So, while different ledges may appear more or less the same, this sameness is the result of minute changes, new growths and seasonal variations.
For our analogy, now, think of the various ledges or levels of the mountain as different time periods. It seems to you as if one reincarnational existence would be layered above the other. You may be able to see that those existences, like the mountain, would exist at once, but you might forget that there is endless creativity and change at all levels of the mountain. New vegetation grows at the bottom layers, for example, as well as at the top ones. (Pause, one of many.) Time periods are natural and creative. They are like the levels of the mountain, bringing forth fresh life. They do not vanish when you are finished with your growth there, but serve as a growing media for other personalities. Give us a moment . . . Time periods themselves, then, are somewhatlike platforms — natural platforms — that serve "time and time again" to bring forth fresh life. Because of your viewpoint this is highly difficult [for you] to understand.
Say you were bom in 1940. It seems to you that 1940 is gone, though it was the time of your birth. Returning to our analogy, however: You are like one violet, bom in one spring on one ledge, and we will call the ledge, here, 1940. Other people are being bom in 1940 now, in a different "season." You are only aware of your own position within time, or your own place on the "platform," or the ledge as you understand it. Not only do these ledges or platforms of time exist simultaneously, but each one brings forth its own batches of personalities in its own different seasons. To that degree you are aware of your own season only, and we will call it the physical one — the particular probable reality that you accept as real.
(Intently:) The ledge of 1940, however, is still as immediate and now and present as it was when you were bom. Other personalities, again, are being bom "there," but their season or reality is different than yours. Psychically you are somewhat related, in the same way for instance that the violets that grow this year in one spot are related to all violets that have grown — or will ever grow — from (or on) the same spot. Each moment, each year, has other dimensions, therefore, that you do not comprehend as yet. To you, other people born now in 1940 would be born in a probable reality. Yet you share the same bed, so to speak When you look at an object you see its exterior, and when you experience time you perceive its exterior."
---------------------
You have just one life. And your 'I' -identity has a clear beginning, but no ending, as you will exist forever in another form. Other 'You-s' of the greater You that you are (the entity) have been born in other time periods. You may call that 'other incarnations/reincarnations'. Or they live in parallel realities at the same 'time'. None of them is the 'You', you know yourself to be. There is no problem with changing or losing identities.
And if the entity/oversoul so decides, it can send another hundred or thousand versions of you into the year 1940. They would be born NOW in the year 1940. You would perceive that as parallel realities and parallel lives. But 'physically' you live only once, according to Seth.
Quote from: tob on November 30, 2021, 02:15:07 PMAnd if the entity/oversoul so decides, it can send another hundred or thousand versions of you into the year 1940. They would be born NOW in the year 1940. You would perceive that as parallel realities and parallel lives. But 'physically' you live only once, according to Seth.
Tob, I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. The entity can throw forth as many mes as it wants. However the entirety of the soul is contained within all fragments of it. So I will go on and I will be invested in physical form once again. The soul is in us and we are a tool of it but we are all its incarnations and we contain within us the memory of all those/our incarnations. When the veil is less dense in the next stage of human evolution we will all remember our past incarnations. So ofc this physical vehicle expires, this identity formed from my sex, race, education and so on will fall away. The core spirit of me though contains the entirety of the soul and progresses on, can choose to be physical again (in which case I would be reincarnating) or can decide to do something else. So this runs against the statement of 'physically you live only once'. This current identity lives only once but the identity is not me. So saying 'you' live only once is misleading. Or have I missed something? Thanks 🙏
"11:32.) Physically, your body must follow the nature into which you were born, and in that context the cycle of youth and age is highly important. In some ways, the rhythm of birth and death is like a breath taken and exhaled. Feel your own breath as it comes and goes. You are not it, yet it comes into you and leaves you, and without its continuous flow you could not physically exist. Just so your lives go in and out of you — you and yet not you. And a portion of you, while letting them all go, remembers them and knows their journey.
Imagine where your breath goes when it leaves your body, how it escapes through an open window perhaps and becomes a part of the space outside, where you would never recognize it — and when it has left you it is no longer a part of what you are, for you are already different. So the lives you have lived are not you, while they are of you."
—NoPR Chapter 9: Session 636, January 29, 1973
Perhaps this illuminates a bit what we are grasping at. We are never our incarnations but they are of us.
Quote from: Bora137 on December 01, 2021, 09:54:53 AMQuote from: tob on November 30, 2021, 02:15:07 PMAnd if the entity/oversoul so decides, it can send another hundred or thousand versions of you into the year 1940. They would be born NOW in the year 1940. You would perceive that as parallel realities and parallel lives. But 'physically' you live only once, according to Seth.
Tob, I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. The entity can throw forth as many mes as it wants. However the entirety of the soul is contained within all fragments of it. So I will go on and I will be invested in physical form once again. The soul is in us and we are a tool of it but we are all its incarnations and we contain within us the memory of all those/our incarnations. When the veil is less dense in the next stage of human evolution we will all remember our past incarnations. So ofc this physical vehicle expires, this identity formed from my sex, race, education and so on will fall away. The core spirit of me though contains the entirety of the soul and progresses on, can choose to be physical again (in which case I would be reincarnating) or can decide to do something else. So this runs against the statement of 'physically you live only once'. This current identity lives only once but the identity is not me. So saying 'you' live only once is misleading. Or have I missed something? Thanks 🙏
"11:32.) Physically, your body must follow the nature into which you were born, and in that context the cycle of youth and age is highly important. In some ways, the rhythm of birth and death is like a breath taken and exhaled. Feel your own breath as it comes and goes. You are not it, yet it comes into you and leaves you, and without its continuous flow you could not physically exist. Just so your lives go in and out of you — you and yet not you. And a portion of you, while letting them all go, remembers them and knows their journey.
Imagine where your breath goes when it leaves your body, how it escapes through an open window perhaps and becomes a part of the space outside, where you would never recognize it — and when it has left you it is no longer a part of what you are, for you are already different. So the lives you have lived are not you, while they are of you."
—NoPR Chapter 9: Session 636, January 29, 1973
Perhaps this illuminates a bit what we are grasping at. We are never our incarnations but they are of us.
You are an eternal and indestructible soul, which is part of your oversoul, i.e.: the entity (in Seth's system). As your own individual soul you took the decision to incarnate. You could have decided not to incarnate, but you did. There are souls which never incarnate (Seth, Bashar). This means you - as a soul - are currently projecting a part of yourself into 'physical reality' in order to have specific experiences. It is these experiences that matter. They are your specific and individual contribution to creation. They are unique and will never be forgotten or lost or annihilated. They are part of creation. They are what creation is about.
In order to generate these experiences you make use of a reality production mechanism. This mechanism is neutral. You are 'feeding' it with the vibrations of your belief systems, your emotions and your thoughts, (making use of mental enzymes and mental genes and a lot of other stuff from F2), thereby creating the temporary illusion of being immersed in a specific reality. With a different set of vibrations (belief systems, emotions, thoughts, etc.) you would be creating a different F1 reality. This reality does not objectively 'exist'. You only think it does. It is a camouflage reality (Seth) designed to ensure that your experiences are (temporarily) perceived by you as 'real'. Otherwise the exercise would be futile and shallow, and as meaningless as a narrated meal. Consequently, the experiences would not really 'matter' and there would be no real progress in terms of rediscovering who you really are from a new perspective.
You have not been 'invested' in by someone. You are your own soul, in the same way as any reincarnational personality is its own soul. And any parallel personality is its own soul as well (the soul of Robert Butts who died as a child is not the soul of Robert Butts who was editing the books of Seth and Jane Roberts). But all these individual souls (a considerable number) are part of a specific grouping or oversoul (Seth). And in case that their identity is strong enough, they can sooner or later even seed a new oversoul (Seth). And oversouls join together as well, thus forming oversouls of oversouls (Bashar). This goes up and up and up...(Bashar), but it is dynamically changing and not fixed (Seth). Robert Butts and Jane's souls are or were at a specific point in time part of a common entity (together with Seth). Later on the identity of Jane Roberts turned out to be strong enough to form its own entity, if I recall it correctly.
Please note: You ARE a soul, having a 3d experience. You don't HAVE a soul. And nothing is being imposed on you. Not by your own soul and definitely not by the oversoul. You are your own soul and you have free will. You can do whatever you want.
Quote from: Tob on November 30, 2021, 12:46:56 PMThank you. Not really so urgent. I will continue working on the interface between F2 and F1. I am not so keen on '-isms' anyway. The 'quandrants' seem to be important.
Hi Tob, thanks for letting me know. I thought it was going to be easy putting together the pyramid gestalt topic. I got as far as copying & pasting most of the sessions below but I quickly realized how much time it would take me to go through them and strip out the irrelevant text. I could just leave the whole sessions in, but some are very lengthy. I already have 36 pages of text and still have more to go. Since I'm working on a couple of projects right now, I'll set this aside for a bit. It's very interesting and I do plan to carry through. It just seems to take me a while to follow through on my intentions these days.
This list came from the Seth search engine, and also a couple of documents I found.
TES3 Session 96 Oct 12, 1964
TES3 Session 128 Feb 3, 1965
TES3 Session 135 Feb 24, 1965
TES4 Session 177 Aug 11, 1965
TES5 Session 203 Oct 28, 1965
TES5 Session 213, Dec 1, 1965
TES7 Session 297 Oct 26, 1966
TES7 Session 303 Nov 26, 1966
TES7 Session 311 Jan 11, 1967
TES8 Session 417 Jun 17, 1968
TES9 Session 427 Aug 7, 1968
TES9 Session 510 Jan 19, 1970
TECS2 ESP Class Mar 17, 1970
SS Chapter 22, Session 589 Aug 4, 1971
SS Introduction 1972
Also, here's a note from Rob in Session 203:
(See the following sessions for material on the God concept, psychic and pyramid gestalts, and related questions: 51, 81, 95, 97, 115, 135, 146-9, 151, 177, among others.)Also, another Rob note from Session 177:
(Seth has actually dealt with the God concept fairly often. This would involve such related matters as the soul, energy transformation, cycles on our plane, spirituality, the "source of the source," the Crucifixion, beginnings and endings, prayer and the will to be, etc. Among others see the following sessions: 3, 24, 27, 31, 51, 62, 66, 81, 95, 96, 97, 115, 135, 146, 147, 149, 145, 151.)Oh, also I saw this after the fact:
Quote from: Tob on November 28, 2021, 08:27:47 AM(it would be nice if it was possible to upload such pictures directly. There is no copyright infringement involved as long as they fall under the research exemption/fair use doctrin)
You can either upload pictures if you have them on your computer by clicking
Attachments and other options once you're in Preview mode and uploading the file (the link is below the text edit box). It will be made an attachment, and you have the option of also inserting the image in your post. I understand fair use, I just don't want a company such as Getty Images coming after me (I've had a couple of friends that got in trouble with them), or upsetting Laurel.
slantf7k7d.png
You should be able to insert a link to an image right into your post by clicking the icon in the text editor bar that looks like a little photo. It's to the right of the YouTube button. BUT apparently that's not working. So... another support request to Simple Machines.
Quote from: Deb on December 01, 2021, 07:49:36 PMQuote from: Tob on November 30, 2021, 12:46:56 PMThank you. Not really so urgent. I will continue working on the interface between F2 and F1. I am not so keen on '-isms' anyway. The 'quandrants' seem to be important.
Hi Tob, thanks for letting me know. I thought it was going to be easy putting together the pyramid gestalt topic. I got as far as copying & pasting most of the sessions below but I quickly realized how much time it would take me to go through them and strip out the irrelevant text. I could just leave the whole sessions in, but some are very lengthy. I already have 36 pages of text and still have more to go. Since I'm working on a couple of projects right now, I'll set this aside for a bit. It's very interesting and I do plan to carry through. It just seems to take me a while to follow through on my intentions these days.
This list came from the Seth search engine, and also a couple of documents I found.
TES3 Session 96 Oct 12, 1964
TES3 Session 128 Feb 3, 1965
TES3 Session 135 Feb 24, 1965
TES4 Session 177 Aug 11, 1965
TES5 Session 203 Oct 28, 1965
TES5 Session 213, Dec 1, 1965
TES7 Session 297 Oct 26, 1966
TES7 Session 303 Nov 26, 1966
TES7 Session 311 Jan 11, 1967
TES8 Session 417 Jun 17, 1968
TES9 Session 427 Aug 7, 1968
TES9 Session 510 Jan 19, 1970
TECS2 ESP Class Mar 17, 1970
SS Chapter 22, Session 589 Aug 4, 1971
SS Introduction 1972
Also, here's a note from Rob in Session 203:
(See the following sessions for material on the God concept, psychic and pyramid gestalts, and related questions: 51, 81, 95, 97, 115, 135, 146-9, 151, 177, among others.)
Also, another Rob note from Session 177:
(Seth has actually dealt with the God concept fairly often. This would involve such related matters as the soul, energy transformation, cycles on our plane, spirituality, the "source of the source," the Crucifixion, beginnings and endings, prayer and the will to be, etc. Among others see the following sessions: 3, 24, 27, 31, 51, 62, 66, 81, 95, 96, 97, 115, 135, 146, 147, 149, 145, 151.)
Oh, also I saw this after the fact:
Quote from: Tob on November 28, 2021, 08:27:47 AM(it would be nice if it was possible to upload such pictures directly. There is no copyright infringement involved as long as they fall under the research exemption/fair use doctrin)
You can either upload pictures if you have them on your computer by clicking Attachments and other options once you're in Preview mode and uploading the file (the link is below the text edit box). It will be made an attachment, and you have the option of also inserting the image in your post. I understand fair use, I just don't want a company such as Getty Images coming after me (I've had a couple of friends that got in trouble with them), or upsetting Laurel.
slantf7k7d.png
You should be able to insert a link to an image right into your post by clicking the icon in the text editor bar that looks like a little photo. It's to the right of the YouTube button. BUT apparently that's not working. So... another support request to Simple Machines.
Thank you very much
Session 31: "In the back of your mind is one question that I have avoided for many reasons. One of the main reasons for my avoiding it was the necessity of giving prerequisite material so that the answer would be at least partially comprehensible. The question has to do with the so-called creation of your universe, the introduction of entities upon it, and of course with the cause or causes behind such creation. You know by now that you create your own camouflage-patterned universe, and I have tried to cover some of the mechanisms involved in this continuous, seemingly automatic creation. If this were fully understood you see, then there would not be the necessity of looking for some god. I am certainly not going into the God concept at this time, though you can be certain that I will cover it thoroughly, since it is itself an idea camouflage covering something much different.
You know then that you yourselves create your universe and that each generation creates it anew in its own image. There is a growth principle operating in the realm of ideas and in the construction of these ideas into camouflage patterns. The patterns evolve according to certain laws. They merely reflect the ideas behind them, and these ideas you must realize originate from different sources. They originate in the subconscious, it is true, but before this an idea quality is received by the inner senses. Sometimes this idea quality is received as intuition, where it sparks into the conscious mind. But the conscious ego is the primary manipulator of camouflage patterns and the obvious mover.
The actual material from which camouflage patterns are formed is the vitality which exists and which is unconsciously used by your personalities. This actual gathering up of prime vitality for the purpose of physical construction is not however truly automatic, and it is not truly performed unconsciously. The strong self-conscious self of which I have spoken, the self-conscious self of which your own personality is not aware, this self that faces into the inner world of reality, quite consciously draws upon the vitality and stuff of what is. The conscious ego then manipulates this material for the purposes of camouflage constructions. The transformation of vitality into physical properties is done by this self-conscious self that faces the inner world. The subconscious is the link between these two self-consciousnesses, and here you find an acceptance by the camouflage personality of the materials at hand.
At the same time the camouflage consciousness cannot be aware of the actual originator, and therefore must look for causes from the outside. In your dual system, that is, the two self-consciousnesses are more divided and alien to themselves than need be. The old idea of spirits pervading all physical matter actually represents an intuitive glimpse into reality that your sciences will finally arrive at in a long labored manner. You can see now why the problem of creation does not really exist in the terms that you first thought of it. During one session I mentioned that since self-consciousness even exists in all living things, then the question of the exact entrance be specified becomes irrelevant. (...)
The fact is that your plane originated because enough entities needed certain types of experience to warrant such a creation, and they set about forming it through the process of evolution. That I believe you understand. The smallest minute first portion represented the will and vitality of all the entities that would ever dwell upon the earth that would come after. It was far from a purposeless arrangement. It involved a foresight hardly imaginable, and I repeat that you had your part in the initial reaction, as did every entity who lived or will live upon the earth; and here we are getting into something rather difficult but certainly no mystery. I hope I will be able to make this entirely comprehensible at some future time.
Nevertheless I will state a few matters now and you will understand them more fully in later sessions. Since all entities had a hand in when the first particle of matter came into physical materialization, then the inference is plain that entities not yet born upon your planet somehow existed then, and this is the case. You are familiar I am sure with the old religious Christian dictum that God always was and always will be, and this is considered a religious mystery. The fact is that entities always were and always will be, though not necessarily in the same form. This involves on the part of the entity the use of personalities, which are in a manner capsules of itself or even compartments—part of the whole entity but neatly divided as far as memory and so forth is concerned. Nor is this the only universe which you have helped construct. (...)
Human consciousness involves entity consciousness, and entity consciousness asserted itself at the very first phase of physical materialization. ("Does this include the actual physical construction of the earth itself? Or are you referring to the beginnings of life upon an earth already in existence?") That includes constructing the earth itself, and when I spoke of the first particle I referred to the very first materialization of physical matter, period. It was this first particle before earth had its form to which I referred when saying that it was the result of the will of all the entities who would ever be born upon it.(...)
All entities basically are self-aware portions of energy or vitality. They are self-generating and there is no possibility of thinking in terms of either beginning or end. Again, it is only your own camouflage-imprisoned data which makes you think that everything has a beginning and an end. (...)
In a very simple example, consider that you yourself use your own energy to create your dream world. In this way also you create your socalled real camouflage world, the only difference being that the dream world images do not have duration in physical time although they have duration in psychological time. And believe it or not, actually your individuality has much more freedom in the creation of your dream world, and this is the reason why the dream world does not appear consistent to others. In the creation of the physical world a certain giving up of individuality is absolutely necessary, since the overall material environment must appear more or less the same to everyone. Of course it will never appear absolutely the same, but it must have a fairly dependable overall coherence."
------------------------------------
Please find below again the illustration of the three kinds of ego-consciousnesses that are involved in the creation of the individual camouflage reality (F1) and the individual dream world. Without the illustration the text is not easy to understand.
https://www.gestaltreality.com/2013/05/22/the-multidimensional-self/
Quote from: Tob on December 01, 2021, 02:28:33 AMWe don't live forever. We die. We (may) exist forever. The question was whether we do reincarnate.
Hi Tob, let me start with this Seth excerpt:
Seth (Session 530): Now: Let me make this clear once again:
Your present personality as you think of it is indeed "indelible", and continues after death to grow and develop.Barrie Comments: So, if "your present personality
as you think of it...continues after death to grow and develop," doesn't that mean we live forever...not in our physical body, tho. Also, "indelible" means "lasting."
Death is a physical reality—but there is no death in the expansive reality. How do you define live? We DO live forever. The personality NEVER dies. It leaves the physical system but it does not end or die. It still lives...but not physically in "our" probable reality we think of as our physical reality.
Seth (ESP Class, 11-21-72): In a discussion about war, and killing people in war, Seth said): "Now in greater terms, you know quite well that
you cannot annihilate a consciousness. And all of those who die in war, know well that they will die in war ahead of time."
Barrie Comments: ALL events are real, but NOT all events are physical. The physical BODY dies. We do NOT physically forever in our physical body...BUT the personality continues. It does not end.
One famous Seth expression is, "You're as dead right now as you'll ever be."Seth (Session 759): You may ask how real are those other existences, but if so, you must ask in whose terms. Existence has a physical version. In that framework you are born and die, and in a definite sequence.
Death is a physical reality. It is real, however, only in physical terms. If you accept those terms as the only criterion of reality, then surely it appears that death is an end to your consciousness.
Session 759: "You cannot...insist that the laws of your vaster existence, as you discover them, supersede the physical conditions of known life -- for then no facts would apply... You will expect to live forever in the same physical body, or think that you can levitate with your body at will. You can indeed levitate, but not with your physical body, practically speaking in operational terms.
You accepted a body, and THAT body will die. It HAS limitations, but these also serve to highlight certain kinds of experience...The 'true FACTS' are that you exist IN this life and OUTSIDE it simultaneously.
You are 'between lives' and 'in lives' at once...Your life is a dreaming experience to other portions of your greater reality which focus elsewhere...Existence has a physical version."
Barrie Continues: Also, IF you read chapters 9-12 of Seth Speaks, Seth explains that there is no point of death and much more about life after death. For just one example:
Seth (Session 535): "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...
"Since your bodies and your entire physical universe are composed of atoms and molecules, then I am telling you that the entire structure exists in the same manner. It flickers off and on, in other words, and in a certain rhythm, as, say, the rhythm of breath. There are overall rhythms, and within them an infinity of individual variations--almost like cosmic metabolism.
"In these terms,
what you call death is simply the insertion of a longer duration of that pulsation of which you are not aware, a long pause in that other dimension, so to speak...
"All through your lifetime, portions of that body die and the body that you have now does not contain one particle of physical matter that 'it' had, say, ten years ago. Your body is completely different now, then, than it was ten years ago. The body that you had ten years ago, my dear readers, is dead.
Yet, obviously, you do not feel that you are dead, and you are quite able to read this book with the eyes that are composed of completely new matter. Yet there seems to be no great gap in your vision. This process, you see, continues so smoothly that you are not aware of it. The pulses mentioned earlier are so short in duration that your consciousness skips over them merrily, yet
your physical perception cannot seem to bridge the gap when the longer rhythm of pulsation occurs. And so this is the time that you perceive as death."Barrie Continues: Below, Seth discusses how we will never lose our personal characteristics. (CAPS and
bold added for emphasis only:
Seth (ESP Class, 5-8-71): "Now each of you is a part of All That Is, highly individual and unique, like no other, and that like no other-ness will never be taken from you.
You will NOT melt into some great golden bliss in which your characteristics will disappear. You will not be gobbled by a super-god. On the other hand YOU WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST, you will continue to be responsible for the way in which you use energy, you will expand in ways now impossible for you to understand. You will learn to command energy of which you now do not know. You will realize that you are more than you realize that you are now, but YOU WILL NOT LOSE THE STATE OF WHICH YOU ARE NOW AWARE, and regardless of the fact of reincarnation and regardless of probable selves the UNIQUE SELF THAT YOU NOW CALL YOURSELF HAS ETERNAL VALIDITY even though the memories that you cannot now consciously recall will be yours in their entirety; and physical life in its reincarnational self is not some chaos thrust upon you, some evil from which you must shortly hope to escape. It is a particular reality in which you have chosen to know your existence, in which you have chosen to develop yourself, and it is indeed a system, again, like no other system, a unique and dear and beloved portion of reality in which you have decided to flourish for a while. And in denying it, again, you deny the reality of experience.
"In other terms, you will leave this system for others, but
there will be a portion of you yet, no matter how many eons pass, that remembers a spring evening and a smell of autumn air; and those things will always be with you when you want them. You make your own flesh and your own world as now en mass you form the evening. These are creations of yours and of your kind. They are not prisons to be escaped from."
Barrie Continues: Seth states above that "you will continue to exist...you will not lose the state of which you are now aware (and) the unique self that you now call yourself has eternal validity."
Perhaps if you define your terms better...it will be helpful. For example, please explain the difference between "you won't live forever" and "you will exist forever" or as Seth says above, "You will continue to exist."
Barrie Continues: We are each a focal personality. Each focal personality has INFINITE numbers of probable realities. These do not end—they forever expand. Any "end" is only from the physical perspective when it occurs in THAT one probable reality of the infinite numbers of the probable realities which keep growing.
Tob Writes: "The question was whether we do reincarnate."
Seth (ESP Class, 2-8-68)
"You will reincarnate whether or not you believe that you will. It is much
easier if your theories fit reality, but if they do not, you will not change the nature of reincarnation one iota."
Barrie Comments: So, Tob, what do
you mean by "we? WHO is the WE you speak of?
Or, if you will, may I put it this way, "The question is whether I reincarnate."
Or, perhaps, "The question is whether you reincarnate."
And in THESE cases, who is the "I" or the "you"? Will you please elaborate and clarify what your definitions and/or perspectives are here? Thanks.
As I mentioned above: Seth states above that "you will continue to exist...you will not lose the state of which you are now aware (and)
the unique self that you now call yourself has eternal validity." Seth (Session 58): "Now you will see what I am saying.
In various reincarnations upon your plane, the ego that reincarnates is the same ego. The information of past lives is retained by that ego's subconscious, for obvious reasons."
Barrie Comments: Even from this perspective, you are still alive—for "the ego that reincarnates is the same ego."
Seth (Session 727):
"To a future self no more illuminated than you are, you appear dead and lifeless -- a dim memory."Barrie Comments: Yet,
here you are—quite alive.
Quote from: barrie on December 03, 2021, 08:33:39 AMSeth (Session 530): Now: Let me make this clear once again: Your present personality as you think of it is indeed "indelible", and continues after death to grow and develop.
If the me that I think of as me reincarnates, does that mean that in that other life, I have the same personality, as implied by that quote? It seems to me that this other incarnation would have its own personality. I can see maybe having the same continuing identity, but there would be so many other influences in another life that molds personality. There is a difference between identity and personality.
Quote from: Tob on December 03, 2021, 01:53:20 PMQuote from: Tob on December 03, 2021, 01:40:47 PMThanks for your post.
The statement 'your present personality as you think of it continues after death to grow and develop', means that 'your present personality as you think of it continues after death to grow and develop'. Not more and not less. Everything else is interpretation. No one knows what comes after physical death. We all can just make a few more or less plausible assumptions.
With a view to the issue of 'reincarnation', there is a core problem with the - necessary - loss or modification of memories and identities. This conundrum must be solved. Otherwise one cannot easily talk about 'reincarnation', even if a lot of money is being made with this concept.
"Reincarnation does not imply a recurring time system, nor does it imply an extension of time as it is normally considered. That is, reincarnation does not imply in a basic manner existence in one life after another, in your time of successive moments."
—TES6 Session 256 May 4, 1966
According to Jane Roberts in 'Adventures in Consciousness' there are probable 'You's. They may have the same life as 'You' do, up until a specific point beyond which the 'You's split and go their own way. Thus, different 'You's may have the same history (in life), but from the point of splitting onwards, they continue to develop as different personalities. People born in 1940 may have an identical history until 1980. From then on they are different personalities, though the memory of the first 40 years is identical. 'You's which have been born in 1840 instead of 1940 have no common overlap. They are genuine 'reincarnations' in the sense that they are other probable 'You's, living their lives at a time which has – from a linear perspective – nothing to do with your current lifetime (e.g. starting in 1940). She did support her ideas with several illustrations. I try to add two of them.
From:
Jane Roberts: 'Adventures in Consciousness', Chapter 13: 'The Source Self, The Focus Personality, Probabilities, and Reincarnation'
(...)
I was going to begin with the joking remark that probable events can only have a probable status— what else?— but in a way all events are probable. We just actualize some of these and call them physical. I think that we are creatures of incredible freedom, with immense resources from which we form our experience. We choose physical events, then, from all the pre-perceptions of which the unconscious is aware. And this choice never stops. We aren't locked into one series of happenings. At any time we can pick another line of development from all of the probabilities available to us. Recognition of this would relieve many people from feelings of powerlessness, and allow them to change their lives in a practical manner.
I believe that we do make such alterations often, even if we're not consciously aware of the mechanisms or reasons involved. In such a case, the new alternate probable actions happen on the living area, and the events that might have happened otherwise— the old ones— are discarded but still happening off the living area.
I think that this kind of process occurs often when we change direction in midstream, suddenly alter our circumstances, or seem to be so different from our usual self that this is noticeable to others. At first, such actions may amaze and confuse us. We may not understand what we have done, or even how we did it. Yet a careful examination of the facts will show us that our "new" course was always a probability in our experience, though we may not have regarded it as such.
The crossroads of our lives may involve quite real though invisible intersections, where probabilities meet at definite points in our time and space. They may act as escape hatches from conditions we may have chosen once but no longer accept, or now see as flawed. These probability points would be concentrations of energy formed unconsciously by us adjacent to our living areas. They would be created by intense desires and beliefs that we had entertained, but never chosen as physical events.
On the other hand, some may have been accepted (if not literally actualized) on a living area level at one time, and were then shunted aside, like a railroad car, off the main track. All desires and ideas are action. So these continue adjacent to our living, but form probable patterns all about us. Unconsciously, they will also be latent or inactive at the living area level.
To me, the richness of our experience can't be explained without accepting the existence of probable actions and events as a source for physical experience. The same applies to the experience of our species in general, and to the historic events of the centuries as we know them.
The probability points would represent exchanges between probability and living area actions. I've made two simple diagrams to show what would happen when we change our "line of probabilities" (see Diagrams 4 and 5 ).
Diagram 4 shows a focus personality at the midpoint of its living area. Behind it is a past of actualized events already chosen from probable ones bringing about its own probable future as per the choices that the focus personality has made this far in our terms of time. Following as it has gone, the focus personality would be continuing on with the main line development of the living area.
Instead, in Diagram 5, the focus personality chooses an alternate probability, and "brings it" into the living area, changing the living area at that point. The alternate probability, (2 ), drops down into the living area time spot and becomes "the future" instead of the one chosen earlier.
The part of the focus personality who had decided upon the living area probability as it existed before the decision follows through— but not on the living area. A new focus personality is created, a "probable one," projected into a different kind of reality with the same abilities and previous experience as existed up to the point when the decision was made. In other words, the probable focus personality (or probable self) has a given heritage. It, too, begins to choose from probabilities. The initial focus personality (or physically tuned self) keeps its identity, yet having made the decision to change probabilities, it becomes different than it would have been had it not made the choice.
We talk about the genes and the miracle of unique creatures never duplicated within the framework of biological intricacy. Probabilities provide a psychic and psychological counterpart, but a far more flexible one in which our consciousness has greater freedom of choice, yet a unique quality that gives individuality its indestructible focus at the same time. For no two individuals would be presented with the same set of probabilities, or even make such choices from the same point.
For that matter, reincarnation most likely involves probable existences in alternate living areas. Our life as we know it may be just one time focus in space among others."
(...)
---------------------------
The issues at stake are 'You-ness', 'Other-ness', 'I-am-ness', 'Identity', 'Personality', etc.
Please find attached the two diagrams of Jane Roberts (nos 4 and 5)
Quote from: LarryH on December 03, 2021, 10:25:04 AMIf the me that I think of as me reincarnates, does that mean that in that other life, I have the same personality, as implied by that quote?
Larry, I don't see it that way. One single personality has only one physical incarnation, because it learns all there is to learn in that incarnation. Every personality continues in non-physical reality as a part of the Entity.
Quote from: LarryH on December 03, 2021, 10:25:04 AMIf the me that I think of as me reincarnates, does that mean that in that other life, I have the same personality, as implied by that quote? It seems to me that this other incarnation would have its own personality. I can see maybe having the same continuing identity, but there would be so many other influences in another life that molds personality. There is a difference between identity and personality.
The you who you think of as you will reincarnate--and be another person--altho there will still be connections--and things about you will exist in the subconscious of the "new" person. And, meanwhile, the you who you think you are will still learn and develop--but not on the physical plane.
Quote from: Tob on December 03, 2021, 02:08:04 PMPlease find attached the two diagrams of Jane Roberts (nos 4 and 5)
According to Bashar you are re-creating your universe at the rate of Planck time. This means 10 to the power of 43 times per second. Thus you are creating your own individualized version of your universe 10 to the power of 43 times per second, times 3600 (hour), times 24, times 365, times 80 (years). This is an incredible, but nevertheless finite number of 'now moments' which are experienced individually with your 'I' identity. These moments are usually experienced in linear form (drugs aside). You call it your physical 'life'. At the moment of death you undergo what is called a 'life review'. This implies that you give up your linear perspective, and you see all the 'now moments' present at the same 'time' for the sake of evaluating your life and your decisions. All these now moments exist forever, as well as everything else that ever was, is, or will be. Everything does exist in the 'Now'. ('Spacious present' in Seth's terminology).
These individualized 'now moments' and the specific, individualized experiences they are transporting are what creation is about. THIS is creation, not the 3d camouflage reality. The 3d camouflage reality is the instrument creation has for generating specific, individualized life experiences which are – without exception - worthy, permanent and which will never be annihilated. The purpose of creation is to create and add, not to annihilate. And as a re-assurance principle (against inadvertent annihilation) creation makes use of the holographic principle. Thus, nothing which has ever been created can become lost. In case it would neverthelsess be inadvertently forgotten or annihilated (which cannot happen anyway according to Seth), the information would always be present and available again. Forever. Because of the holographic character of existence.
The 'You' you know yourself to be, or you think you know yourself to be, has ONE single physical life. At the end of your physical life you die, you re-evaluate your life (the incredible amount of 'now' - moments, and then you continue. You will continue forever because you are an indestructible 'I' - aspect of 'All-that-is'. You have done your job on our current plane and then you continue. Neither Seth nor Bashar are clear what exactly comes after death. According to Bashar the options we have and the decisions we could make cannot be explained to us at the current moment. We would not understand it. Both concur that you will have more options, more freedom, and more opportunities than you can think of now.
The 'You' you are now (know yourself to be, think yourself to be, hope to know yourself to be, etc...) has been born at the beginning of an individualized timeline (e.g. beginning in 1960), with the 'I'-identity of your entity of which you are a part. From then on this 'I'-identity is formed and transformed by life events and is changing its character. At the age of 40 you will normally have managed to integrate the 'I' identity of the 10 years old you that you were 30 years earlier, but you are not longer that 10 years old, and you know it (drugs aside). The 'I'-identity of the 10 years old has become part of the more advanced and developed 'You' that you are now.
At the point of death you will have lived a unique and highly individualized life, which will never be lived again by anybody else. This is your unique contribution to creation. And from then on you will continue in another context. You will continue to learn and to have experiences which you will assimilate and integrate. Finally you will end up with your own 'I'-identity at the level of 'All-that-is' and experience yourself as 'All-that-is'. (having integrated the 'identities'' and the now-moments of the 10 years old, the 40 years old, the 80 years old – point of death – the 100 'years' old, the 1000 'years' old, the 10 000 'years' old, etc. etc. having had unique and individualized experiences in other contexts which elude our 3d comprehension now.
You may have been born in 1940. After highschool and university you did apply for jobs. You did not really understand or know whether you were already sufficiently qualified for specific jobs and careers. One evening you saw an advertisement for something challenging, but attractive. Not quite sure whether you were skilled enough, you drafted a letter for submitting your job application. After writing the letter you had a few beers and you were in a fantastic mood because of the letter you had just written and you decided to send it as early as possible the next day. Then you went to bed.
The next morning you read the advertisement again and suddenly you had doubts as to whether you should send the letter. You understood that it was a job abroad that explicitly required good skills in a specific foreign language, which you didn't have. You began to feel insecure and did decide not to send the letter. Instead you concentrated on looking for other jobs or opportunities.
(The issue with the letter per se is a Seth example).
Thus you had reached a decision-making point where probabilities crossed. This is where the concept of probable lives and parallel realities comes in (Jane Roberts, Seth, Bashar). The 'You' you knew yourself to be thereafter did not send the letter, did not get this specific job, was not in need of improving language skills, and did never work abroad. But there is a version of you that did. And the splitting of the 'You's at the decision-making point implies that from the moment of the sending or not-sending of the letter there were TWO You's, which had an identical history up until that point in time. But - caused by - the decision to either send the letter of not there were suddenly two You's, and no longer one. This means two independent personalities, two individually developing identities, two different physical lives and two different timelines. And two different and entirely individual contributions to creation. You died at 67, the other person 10 years later.
You had your life review (the incredibly high number of 'now' moments and you did review parts of the life of the other 'you' as well, because it was somehow relevant for the theme you had chosen in your own life. But you experienced the impression of the other life with your own 'I' identity. And the other 'You', when dying ten years later at the age of 77 does the same. And both 'You's continue to exist independently forever – in other contexts – as they are both parts of creation and they are both eternal, indestructible parts of 'All-that-is'. And they will both experience themselves one day as 'All-that-is', at the level of All-that-is, with their own specific 'I'-identity.
And from the moment of splitting onwards (the letter) they are producing two independent F1 realities, making use independently of the neutral reality production mechanism as explained by Seth. Their synapses are choosing different reality frames (NoPR, Seth) among all the available and possible reality frame options. The synapses of one of the two 'You's choose frames nos 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc. to create a specific F1 experience, (similar to a film projection), the synapses of the other person choose 6, 11, 16, 21, 26 for creating another F1 reality. In both cases probable alternatives are constantly being tested beforehand in dream time.
And in both cases the experiences generated are the individualized contribution to creation, i.e. CREATION itself. And none of the individual 'now'- moments which make up either of the two physical lives, is ever lost, forgotten, or even annihilated. In case of doubt the holographic principle serves as a re-assurance against inadvertent loss. And the reality production process at the interface between F2 and F1 is caused by CUs, transforming into EEu's, transforming into subatomic particles, transforming into atoms, transforming into molecules, transforming into cellular structures and everything else (Seth). Respectively, it is caused and generated by the 'Prime Radiant', which is a single 'particle', but pure consciousness, transforming into CUs, transforming into EEu's, transforming into subatomic particles, transforming into atoms, transforming into molecules, transforming into cellular structures and everything else (Bashar).
And everything is 'here and now'. Because there is only 'here and now'. Everything is just a matter of different vibrations.
Quote from: barrie on December 04, 2021, 06:22:43 AMThe you who you think of as you will reincarnate--and be another person--altho there will still be connections--and things about you will exist in the subconscious of the "new" person. And, meanwhile, the you who you think you are will still learn and develop--but not on the physical plane.
That seems contradictory. You are saying that "I" will reincarnate, but "I" will meanwhile also be in a non-physical plane. I guess in the sense of time being an illusion, I can be in both states of existence at once, but I have a hard time imagining where my sense of self is while I am both in the physical and in the non-physical.
As Tob presents based on Bashar, we live only once. As Barrie presents based on Seth, we will reincarnate whether or not we believe we will. If I understand correctly, if we think of the oversoul as an orange, we can think of the segments of the orange as individual souls that each incarnate once in Tob's/Bashar's version. Each segment may view other segments as a reincarnation, though that connection is only via the common connection to the whole orange or oversoul. Alternatively, in the Barrie/Seth version, each segment may reincarnate multiple times, and incarnations of other segments of the orange would not be considered as reincarnations of one another. Does that analogy clearly state the differences in the two views?
Quote from: LarryH on December 04, 2021, 09:42:15 AMAs Tob presents based on Bashar, we live only once. As Barrie presents based on Seth, we will reincarnate whether or not we believe we will. If I understand correctly, if we think of the oversoul as an orange, we can think of the segments of the orange as individual souls that each incarnate once in Tob's/Bashar's version. Each segment may view other segments as a reincarnation, though that connection is only via the common connection to the whole orange or oversoul. Alternatively, in the Barrie/Seth version, each segment may reincarnate multiple times, and incarnations of other segments of the orange would not be considered as reincarnations of one another. Does that analogy clearly state the differences in the two views?
I am sure this is not so easy. One of the questions is what constitutes 'I-am-ness'. As opposed to 'You-ness', or 'Other-ness'. From reading Jane Robert's description in 'Adventures in Consciousness' I think there is not much difference between probable selves and reincarnational selves. Two probable selves usually don't know of each other. They are in different realities. There is a version of Robert Butts who died as a child and another one who died as a pilot. In the case of Dr. Pietra, who also seems to be another version of him, that person (in that other reality) seems to know that there is a parallel version of him here in our reality. But they did not manage to meet each other, as far as I understood the material.
I think reincarnational selves are probable selves that live in different timeframes which are sufficiently far apart (i.e. without obvious time overlaps causing logical problems) so that we tend to perceive their existence not as parallel, but as 'earlier' or 'later' in a consecutive sense. They can (and should) be nevertheless subsumed under the heading of probable lives, as Jane Roberts did. I would say reincarnational lives have per se not more to do with each other than other probable lives, e.g. Robert Butts the pilot and Robert Butts the text editor.
If we give up the idea of uniqueness and individuality, as it seems to be implied in the standard understanding of reincarnation (in a consecutive sense) the conundrum must be solved what happens to the former 'I'-identity (of the former life) and the respective memories which were generated so arduously during that specific lifetime.
For the time being I tend to 'hide' behind the formulations of Jane Roberts which I did post earlier (an excerpt from chapter 13 on probable selves and reincarnational selves in her 'Adventures...'–book, and the related two graphics. To me the text and the illustrations are very convincing.
Quote from: Tob on December 04, 2021, 10:53:53 AMQuote from: LarryH on December 04, 2021, 09:42:15 AMAs Tob presents based on Bashar, we live only once. As Barrie presents based on Seth, we will reincarnate whether or not we believe we will. If I understand correctly, if we think of the oversoul as an orange, we can think of the segments of the orange as individual souls that each incarnate once in Tob's/Bashar's version. Each segment may view other segments as a reincarnation, though that connection is only via the common connection to the whole orange or oversoul. Alternatively, in the Barrie/Seth version, each segment may reincarnate multiple times, and incarnations of other segments of the orange would not be considered as reincarnations of one another. Does that analogy clearly state the differences in the two views?
I am sure this is not so easy. One of the questions is what constitutes 'I-am-ness'. As opposed to 'You-ness', or 'Other-ness'. From reading Jane Robert's description in 'Adventures in Consciousness' I think there is not much difference between probable selves and reincarnational selves. Two probable selves usually don't know of each other. They are in different realities. There is a version of Robert Butts who died as a child and another one who died as a pilot. In the case of Dr. Pietra, who also seems to be another version of him, that person (in that other reality) seems to know that there is a parallel version of him here in our reality. But they did not manage to meet each other, as far as I understood the material.
I think reincarnational selves are probable selves that live in different timeframes which are sufficiently far apart (i.e. without obvious time overlaps causing logical problems) so that we tend to perceive their existence not as parallel, but as 'earlier' or 'later' in a consecutive sense. They can (and should) be nevertheless subsumed under the heading of probable lives, as Jane Roberts did. I would say reincarnational lives have per se not more to do with each other than other probable lives, e.g. Robert Butts the pilot and Robert Butts the text editor.
If we give up the idea of uniqueness and individuality, as it seems to be implied in the standard understanding of reincarnation (in a consecutive sense) the conundrum must be solved what happens to the former 'I'-identity (of the former life) and the respective memories which were generated so arduously during that specific lifetime.
For the time being I tend to 'hide' behind the formulations of Jane Roberts which I did post earlier (an excerpt from chapter 13 on probable selves and reincarnational selves in her 'Adventures...'–book, and the related two graphics. To me the text and the illustrations are very convincing.
Seth: "(With emphasis:) Reincarnation simply represents probabilities in a time context (underlined) — portions of the self that are materialized in historical contexts. Period. All kinds of time — backward and forward — emerge from the basic unpredictable nature of consciousness, and are due to "series" of significances. Each self bom in time will then pursue its own probable realities from that standpoint." (session 683)
I guess I can accept the idea that every probable "me", whether offshoots within a given incarnation or other incarnations and all their offshoots are all "me", with separate paths of development. I wonder at what level, if any, do all of these "me's" come together as a gestalt "me"? Perhaps it is at the life review, at least for the probable versions from that life. I would imagine that this would happen at the oversoul level, but I wonder if it happens "below" that, at the "me" level? Perhaps my various "me's" are able to experience the oversoul consciousness while maintaining our separate paths of development, or at least some expanded sense of "me"-ness that includes all the probable self memories and incarnations.
Quote from: LarryH on December 04, 2021, 02:23:39 PMI guess I can accept the idea that every probable "me", whether offshoots within a given incarnation or other incarnations and all their offshoots are all "me", with separate paths of development. I wonder at what level, if any, do all of these "me's" come together as a gestalt "me"? Perhaps it is at the life review, at least for the probable versions from that life. I would imagine that this would happen at the oversoul level, but I wonder if it happens "below" that, at the "me" level? Perhaps my various "me's" are able to experience the oversoul consciousness while maintaining our separate paths of development, or at least some expanded sense of "me"-ness that includes all the probable self memories and incarnations.
This is a Seth Forum, so I will not overly rely on other sources. According to Bashar we create and re-create our own reality, our own universe at the rate of Planck time. Our universe constantly collapses to a zero point before it is re-created again. During that time we make new connections to everything else in All-that-is, i.e.: to the rest of creation. We do that via the oversoul. We are all part of All-that-is and once this regular information exchange has taken place we are a new part of All-that-is with new connections to the rest of creation. Basically, as part of All-that-is we are an informational nodal point.
In addition, Bashar is often referring to the concept of Indra's net. You can google the term. You will find pictures of structures which look like curtains of pearls. The idea is that every single pearl represents one single incarnation. If you put a black dot on one of them it is automatically and immediately reflected by all the other pearls. And vice versa. It means that whatever you do in one incarnation is immediately known by all your other selves. An ancient way to deal with the holographic principle. In the Seth teachings you find the island analogy (UR) and the concept of the constant cross-fertilization.
I assume during the process of re-connecting to the rest of creation you are also connecting more specifically to your other 'me's. Most of them, if not all, should be part of your oversoul.
I see it like the soul is a balloon. From within the balloon a 'finger' pushes outwards creating a point of focus into another reality - this is an incarnation. When the physical incarnation dies the point of focus retracts. But the bulge although retracted and albeit shriveled remains on the outer skin of the soul-ballon. Incarnations are just various roles taken by the 'i'/me/ the soul. The I/me/soul might say I remember when I was a German police officer or remember when I was a lauded aboriginal hunter of great skill. These are in many ways costumes put on, though they contain energy and very importantly 'the entirety of the soul', so do continue and grow if that is their desire.
Quote from: LarryH on December 04, 2021, 09:22:43 AMThat seems contradictory. You are saying that "I" will reincarnate, but "I" will meanwhile also be in a non-physical plane. I guess in the sense of time being an illusion, I can be in both states of existence at once, but I have a hard time imagining where my sense of self is while I am both in the physical and in the non-physical.
Lar, We are
ALWAYS in both states at once all the time. While alive right now this moment as you read these words, you (me and everyone)
flicker or blink in and out of the physical realm each instant--so fast that our five senses don't notice. But we are always in F2.
It is during these "blinking off" states that we make all of our telepathic agreements and explore all probable realities as to what may probably happen if we make one choice over the other--and then pop back into the linear time moment to physically make the choice.
While we are "blinked off" we explore
ALL the probable ramifications of a decision to be made. We can explore 20 years of just one of infinite probabilities--it all occurs outside of linear time--and then we blink back into the F1 moment and make our choice. To our physical senses, it seems like nothing has happened. No flickering, no explorations.
So, while we believe and it seems to our five senses that we are continuously in physical reality--we are actually constantly flickering or blinking in-and-out of our "home base," so to speak, of F2.
To use an analogy:
When we eat pizza in a pizza place, we have one foot in F1 and one foot in F2.
Quote from: Bora137 on December 04, 2021, 03:34:37 PMI see it like the soul is a balloon. From within the balloon a 'finger' pushes outwards creating a point of focus into another reality - this is an incarnation. When the physical incarnation dies the point of focus retracts.
Hi Bora, I like this analogy, but would like to add one thing: When we retract into the soul balloon, we don't get swallowed up by the soul, or become simply a part of all the "air" already in the balloon. We keep our personality after we retract.
To expand on your analogy: The balloon is filled with air and little beads. When the "finger" is pushed outward creating a point of focus in linear time--a little bead is contained in what is pushed out. And that is "you" and you learn and expand and explore your focal consciousness and it all goes in the little bead as well as to the whole soul. And then, when you die or retract, the little bead remains intact with all it has learned--but now also expand further to include the soul awareness, so to speak.
Seth (ESP Class, 5-18-71): "Now each of you is a part of All That Is, highly individual and unique, like no other, and that like no other-ness will never be taken from you.
You will not melt into some great golden bliss in which your characteristics will disappear. You will not be gobbled by a super-god. On the other hand you will continue to exist, you will continue to be responsible for the way in which you use energy, you will expand in ways now impossible for you to understand. You will learn to command energy of which you now do not know. You will realize that you are more than you realize that you are now, but you will not lose the state of which you are now aware, and regardless of the fact of reincarnation and regardless of probable selves the unique self that you now call yourself has eternal validity even though the memories that you cannot now consciously recall will be yours in their entirety; and physical life in its reincarnational self is not some chaos thrust upon you, some evil from which you must shortly hope to escape. It is a particular reality in which you have chosen to know your existence, in which you have chosen to develop yourself, and it is indeed a system, again, like no other system, a unique and dear and beloved portion of reality in which you have decided to flourish for a while. And in denying it, again, you deny the reality of experience.
"In other terms,
you will leave this system for others, but there will be a portion of you yet, no matter how many eons pass, that remembers a spring evening and a smell of autumn air; and those things will always be with you when you want them. You make your own flesh and your own world as now en mass you form the evening. These are creations of yours and of your kind. They are not prisons to be escaped from."
......................
Seth (ESP Class, 3-17-70): "Let me emphasize again that in any terms of which you can conceive of a god, such a god is not static. And as soon as you say, 'God is this' or 'God is that,' god is already entity is that,' it is already something more. You cannot keep track of your own thoughts; why do you think you can keep track of your entity or of a god? Even your thoughts are created and they affect realities of which you do not know. Your thoughts have electromagnetic realities in dimensions that you do not even perceive. Your dreams are realities in dimensions that you do not now perceive. Your entities have realities and dimensions that you do not perceive. The gods not only have surprises for you, but you have surprises for the gods and it can be no other way...
"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, 1-22-74): "God must love individuals since he made so many of them!"
Class Member Asked: "Where did that quote come from?"
Seth Responded: "That is a bastard quote! It is part from me and part from someone else! But in the glorification and realization of your own individuality, do you therefore know what God is. For 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."
Class Member: "What do you call a 'non-being'?"
Seth Responded: "When you try to hide your individuality, you are trying not to be. I did not call God a 'not-being'."
Class Member: "On that concept that is."
Seth: "Indeed. Your eyes and your eyelashes, being individual, express the individuality of All That Is. No snowflake is alike. No person is alike. Through the manifestation of individuality does All That Is express its being.
To be yourself you are, in your terms, what God is. And in your way, you become a conscious co-creator. You are co-creators whether you know it or not. You are creators whether you know it or not. You are created and you create whether you know it or not. You can learn to be conscious co-creators. You form your reality. You can do this consciously. Even when you choose to think in terms of a nebulous, beneficial, divine oneness in which you hope to hide your being, and lose it....
"But do not put your ideas of God, even though those ideas may now be fashionable, or liberal, in a package that is made half of Oriental philosophy and half of old Christian concepts that all result in the idea that you must lose your individuality in a Nirvana of spirit. For you find All That Is through the understanding, the joy, the compassion and the experience of your own individuality.
"You are a portion of what God is, and that God wants you to be you. So why, therefore, try to deny your you-ness and escape it? It can be – it can be – and I am not saying it is, but it can be a fashionable, spiritual cop-out that prevents you from denying certain portions of reality and allows you the luxury of denying your individuality by trying to find a "one-ness" that would annihilate the sacredness within you that is individual, and that is your contact with a God-head."
Quote from: Tob on December 04, 2021, 03:21:57 PMOur universe constantly collapses to a zero point before it is re-created again.
Hi Tob, Seth refers to this as we are constantly flickering or blinking in and out of F1 so fast that our senses don't notice. It is in the "off" states, outside of linear time--in F2 which we never leave--that we make our telepathic agreements and explore all the infinite probabilities when making our choices which seemingly always in F1.
Quote from: LarryH on December 04, 2021, 09:42:15 AMAs Tob presents based on Bashar, we live only once. As Barrie presents based on Seth, we will reincarnate whether or not we believe we will
Larry H Writes: As Tob presents based on Bashar, we live only once. As Barrie presents based on Seth, we will reincarnate whether or not we believe we will.
Barrie Comments: Everything is based on what Bashar means by "we only live once."
Here is Seth, CAPS added for emphasis only:
Seth (Session 539): "After death you will not concentrate upon the physical forms taken by time and events. You may use the same elements, as a painter might use his colors. Perhaps your life span runs for 75 years. After death you may, under certain conditions and if you choose, experience the events of those 75 years at your leisure--BUT NOT NECESSARILY in terms of continuity. You may alter the events. You can manipulate within that particular dimension of activity that represented your 75 years. If you find severe errors of judgement, you may then correct them. You may perfect, in other words, but
you cannot again ENTER INTO THAT FRAME OF REFERENCE as a completely participating consciousness--nor, follow the historic trends of the time, joining into the mass-hallucinated existence that resulted from the applied consciousness of your self and you 'contemporaries.'"
Quote from: LarryH to Barrie on December 04, 2021, 09:22:43 AMThat seems contradictory. You are saying that "I" will reincarnate, but "I" will meanwhile also be in a non-physical plane. I guess in the sense of time being an illusion, I can be in both states of existence at once, but I have a hard time imagining where my sense of self is while I am both in the physical and in the non-physical.
The way I see it is this "me" that I am currently in this life is only a small portion of my greater identity. Like my entity is dipping a toe (me) into the ocean. This me is focused in my current existence, and I don't have any knowledge or memories of my other existences or my greater identity. At least on a conscious level. Once this body dies and I return to the non-physical realm, I will be a conscious portion of my greater identity and will not only retain my memories and personality, but will have access to those of my other incarnations, probable selves, etc. Right now I'm little me (currently Deb 1.65), in F2 I'm BIG ME (Deb 2.0). :)
People who have had NDEs often talk about a feeling of expansiveness and intensity in the other realm. More vividly real and spectacular. They call it hyperreality or "realer than real." We are only experiencing a small part of true reality. We only have what we need to get our "jobs" done here. I'm sure that helps us maintain our focus.
Quote from: Bora137 on December 04, 2021, 03:34:37 PMI see it like the soul is a balloon. From within the balloon a 'finger' pushes outwards creating a point of focus into another reality - this is an incarnation. When the physical incarnation dies the point of focus retracts. But the bulge although retracted and albeit shriveled remains on the outer skin of the soul-ballon.
Yes, great visual! That's kind of the way I see it, the bigger part of us resides in F2, and our individual experiences in F1 are like the finger of the balloon dipping in and then retracting.
Quote from: barrie on December 04, 2021, 04:30:31 PMHi Bora, I like this analogy, but would like to add one thing: When we retract into the soul balloon, we don't get swallowed up by the soul, or become simply a part of all the "air" already in the balloon. We keep our personality after we retract.
Yes, Seth has said that several times. It can be a hard thing for us to grasp because we don't really experience anything like that in our F1 existence. At least humans don't. I don't know about animals. I think of this as I'm still the "me" I've been since my birth. Maybe oversimplified, but I look back at the 5 year old me, the 12 year old me, the 18 year old me, etc. I don't look at those mes as being dead and gone, they are still a part of me right now. I've just matured, improved and had a lot of experiences. I retain a multitude of feelings and memories from all ages in this particular lifetime. Since I consider consciousness to be non-local, I feel I'll retain that the next realm.
Quote from: barrie on December 04, 2021, 04:48:59 PMBarrie Comments: Everything is based on what Bashar means by "we only live once."
I guess it comes down to definitions again. Which "we?" If he means this one instance of myself, here and now, I can accept that. I don't know if Bashar talks about a greater "we" such as an oversoul or entity, I'm really not that familiar with Bashar other than what others have mentioned here. Our entities send out portions of itself into F1, which are our identities (to us), to accomplish a variety of goals. I'd think to send out a portion a second time would be redundant when there are probable selves that could accomplish that in a single incarnation.
Quote from: Deb on December 04, 2021, 06:56:16 PMThe way I see it is this "me" that I am currently in this life is only a small portion of my greater identity.
I get that. What I am still confused about is whether the "me" of this life reincarnates or if it is just other parts of my greater identity that reincarnate. Refer back to the orange and segments of the orange analogy, my greater identity would be the orange, and the "me" of this life would be a segment. Earlier, I used the orange as the oversoul, but it works also to view it as my greater identity.
Quote from: LarryH on December 04, 2021, 11:02:27 PMI get that. What I am still confused about is whether the "me" of this life reincarnates or if it is just other parts of my greater identity that reincarnate. Refer back to the orange and segments of the orange analogy, my greater identity would be the orange, and the "me" of this life would be a segment. Earlier, I used the orange as the oversoul, but it works also to view it as my greater identity.
Hi Larry, "Me" of this is life is a part of the greater identity, as you know. Each focal personality in any given time period is the "me" of
that time period. To each one of
THEM,
YOU are one of their invisible past or future selves.
Don't over think this. Maybe this simple analogy will help. You have different roles in your life. Let's say father, brother, son, grandson, lover, salesman, bowler, friend out with the boys, etc.
T
hey are ALL you--your expansive self, inner self, or whatever.
Each role is a different lifetime. You don't act or talk the same in each role. Talking to grandma you don't say things, curse or remember things that you do when your in the middle of making love. Your bowling role stares and focuses on those pins with the ball in your hand, has no memory in that moment of how you behave with your young child. And so forth.
Each role is another incarnation--is another "me" -- BUT they are still all YOU.You most likely would not ask: Which is the real me? The bowler, lover, father?.
In the subconscious of each role, is the memories and/or egos of the other "you's" You can tap into these subconscious things if you want. They may appear in dreams or hypnosis, etc. Or fleeting images in the middle of the day that last but a moment.
In this analogy, your 2021 focal personality is the bowler. Your 1856 personality is the father. And your 2217 personality is the grandson.
I do NOT mean that you were a bowler in 2021 or a father in 1856. This IS an analogy--as to who the "me" is.
In this one life, you have different "minor me's" as you take on these various roles thru-out the week.
The "me" of the grandson is not the "me" of the lover. But they are all you.The same with our "roles" or lifetimes in various time periods.
And yes,
your orange analogy holds up perfectly. Each orange segment is another focal personality in another time period--and they are all also still a part of the ONE orange (Oversoul) --and share the same juice (experiences--consciously in their now or in the afterdeath).
Quote from: LarryH on December 04, 2021, 11:02:27 PMQuote from: Deb on December 04, 2021, 06:56:16 PMThe way I see it is this "me" that I am currently in this life is only a small portion of my greater identity.
I get that. What I am still confused about is whether the "me" of this life reincarnates or if it is just other parts of my greater identity that reincarnate. Refer back to the orange and segments of the orange analogy, my greater identity would be the orange, and the "me" of this life would be a segment. Earlier, I used the orange as the oversoul, but it works also to view it as my greater identity.
Session 62: "Energy itself is continually new—event, and motion, and no particular pattern will suffice it for long. Energy is self-renewing, and indefinite duration of pattern would lead to dead ends. Energy always builds. Identity, again, is not dependent upon matter. Energy propels and carries along with it, its own traces. Identity, being independent of matter, is then not finished when the particular physical pattern is no longer created. Energy while being propulsive, is also retentive. It retains what you may call memory of previous gestalts. Capsule comprehension exists even in the smallest particle of energy, and even within the smallest particle of energy there exists all possibilities of development and creation.
A psychic gestalt is dependent upon matter, not for its identity but merely for its survival in the physical plane. Psychic gestalts or identities or individualities are for all practical purposes immortal. They may join other gestalts but they will never be less than they once were. Identity then is never broken down. Any apparent breaking down is never an actual fact, as the personality could be thought of as a breaking down of the entity; but this is not so. The personality did not exist as such before its creation by the entity, and once it becomes an identity, it retains that individuality. Earlier it was merely a possibility, as for example a painting that you may paint next year is now only a possibility."
I think Seth is rather operating with the concept of on onion and different layers than with an orange.
Session 512: "The self that you know is but one fragment of your entire identity. These fragment selves are not strung together, however, like beads of a string. They are more like the various skins of an onion, or segments of an orange, all connected through the one vitality and growing out into various realities while springing from the same source. I am not comparing personality to an orange or an onion, but I want to emphasize that as these things grow from within outward, so does each fragment of the entire self. You observe the outside aspect of objects. Your physical senses permit you to perceive the exterior forms to which you then react, but your physical senses to some extent force you to perceive reality in this manner, and the inside vitality within matter and form is not so apparent."
As far as I understand him at the present moment, the 'I-am-ness' you were when you were 10 years old on 8th December at 12:18 is contained in the 'I-am-ness' you were at 12:19 and that self-awareness is contained in the 'I-am-ness' you were at 12:20. And this process continues after death. Thus you can assimilate the experiences of other incarnations as well, but you do that with your own 'I'-identity, which is individual and unique. You are becoming more every moment of your life, and so does the initial entity as well. It always has a lead over you unless or until you leave it and form your own entity. But you are not hampered by the other incarnations, i.e. your 'I'-identity is not hampered by other incarnations. You integrate them. Like reading an additional book, or studying architecture after having been working for years as an accountant. You could still be working as an accountant and the accountant-self will not be annihilated by studying architecture in addition. In the same way you integrate other incarnations with your specific 'I'-identity.
The structure of an orange is definitely different from an onion. If creation is layered, the picture of an onion may be better. In principle it is an onion inside an orange.
Who is this Bashar? I have found all the talk about him to be a distraction. I stopped seeking spiritual sources when I encountered Seth. Seth had so much to say that I never read it all or felt that I needed to move on.
I remember reading some of the "Alexander material", which Rob Butts himself endorsed. But Alexander didn't pass muster with me. He sometimes sounded sarcastic and judgemental, attitudes that Seth never expressed, and the portions that I read didn't sound particularly original.
Seth said that a spirit can speak from any number of places, and that not every spirit who speaks through a channel has wisdom to convey.
Quote from: LarryH on December 04, 2021, 11:02:27 PMI get that. What I am still confused about is whether the "me" of this life reincarnates or if it is just other parts of my greater identity that reincarnate. Refer back to the orange and segments of the orange analogy, my greater identity would be the orange, and the "me" of this life would be a segment. Earlier, I used the orange as the oversoul, but it works also to view it as my greater identity.
Larry, both things may be true. That, it would seem, is the nature of a gestalt, which is what we all are. When you are awake, the dreaming self watches and to certain extent shares in your experiences. And when you are dreaming, your waking self watches and shares in the dream experiences.
When you, Larry, reincarnate -- let's say as Sarah -- Sarah takes the lead and you watch, experience and learn along with Sarah.
It's like the human body. The right arm and hand may dominate in some activities, while the left arm and hand dominate in others. Yet, when the left hand is dominating, the right hand remains part of the body and partakes in the overall experience. I am right-handed, but I have identified a whole bunch of activities in which my left hand takes charge.
Let me add another example: I don't have the Seth text in front of me, but Seth's explanation of the consciousness of a rock is applicable. Different areas of the rock have their own consciousness and identity, and then the entire rock has a consciousness and identity. If one side of the rock gets a whack from something, that portion of the rock has a more direct experience than the rest of the rock, but all of the rock partakes in the experience.
Thanks everybody for your responses. Now I have a different question: when I come to a decision point and both decisions are followed through, creating a new universe, that means that there is another "me" with a different future in that new probability. Seth talked about only two other probable Robs, though he was not necessarily saying that they were the only other probable Robs. There are those who say that moment by moment, we are creating new probabilities, which would mean that there is a virtually infinite number of "me's". Even if we assume that there are on average one key decision per year that causes a new probability, and each probable self continues to split once a year, that means that in 20 years, there would be 1,048,576 "me's", over a trillion "me's" after 40 years, etc. Do you think I would ever to be able to integrate all of those "me's" at a "greater self" level?
I supposedly have 30 trillion cells in my body that are well integrated. According to Seth, every cell has consciousness. Maybe oversimplified again, but that makes me think that yes, it will also work on the entity level.
Quote from: LarryH on December 05, 2021, 10:16:03 AMThanks everybody for your responses. Now I have a different question: when I come to a decision point and both decisions are followed through, creating a new universe, that means that there is another "me" with a different future in that new probability. Seth talked about only two other probable Robs, though he was not necessarily saying that they were the only other probable Robs. There are those who say that moment by moment, we are creating new probabilities, which would mean that there is a virtually infinite number of "me's". Even if we assume that there are on average one key decision per year that causes a new probability, and each probable self continues to split once a year, that means that in 20 years, there would be 1,048,576 "me's", over a trillion "me's" after 40 years, etc. Do you think I would ever to be able to integrate all of those "me's" at a "greater self" level?
"The you that you are can make any changes you want to in your experience: You can change probabilities for your own purposes, but you cannot change the courses of other probable selves that have gone their own ways. All probable selves are connected. [...] Each probable self has its own free will and uniqueness. You can change your own experience in the probability you know — which itself rides upon infinite other probabilities. You can bring into your own experience any number of probable events, but you cannot deny the probable experience of another portion of your reality."
—UR1 Section 2: Session 695 May 6, 1974
There is an infinite number of possibilities. The question is which of these possibilities becomes probable and under which circumstances. More precisely: What is the threshold of probability? According to Seth there is even an infinite number of probabilities (see above). The 'You' you know yourself to be, is 'just another' probable 'You' from the point of view of any other of the 'You's.
I just want to make a point. I wonder if we aren't taking too much from science fiction when we think of probable selves. In science fiction shows, the people in probable universes always look exactly like the main characters. Seth described something a little different. Our probable selves may exist in universes (planes) that aren't exactly like ours, that have different natural laws. Our probable selves may not be human beings quite as we know them, but look and act differently. Furthermore, not every possible action must be played out in a probable universe. Many of them are played out in our dreams. Some of them are projected into other planes and played out there by other individuals (I'm pretty sure Seth gave that as an option).
The "threshold of probability" that Tob wonders about would be determined by the intensity of our feelings. Thus, if you are facing two choices and you are emotionally invested in both, both of them may be played out in some reality; but if your thoughts are just fleeting, that won't happen.
Quote from: Tob on December 05, 2021, 10:53:21 AMMore precisely: What is the threshold of probability?
Tob, thanks for opening another can of worms, as it were! I think this thread is getting over-loaded, and I hope you don't mind if I open a new thread for the "threshold for probabilities".
I said something about that directly above.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on December 05, 2021, 02:22:17 PMOur probable selves may exist in universes (planes) that aren't exactly like ours, that have different natural laws. Our probable selves may not be human beings quite as we know them, but look and act differently. Furthermore, not every possible action must be played out in a probable universe. Many of them are played out in our dreams. Some of them are projected into other planes and played out there by other individuals (I'm pretty sure Seth gave that as an option).
Hi Caleb, We each have
INFINITE numbers of probable realities. To each one of these probable realities directly related to a person,
he is one of
their invisible probable realities.
I would say that infinite probable realities do not resemble our universe or rely on our physics at all. Probable realities don't pop up in a vacuum. They relate to our physical choices as well as to our imagination.
The ones that directly relate to our choices, would have probable selves that resemble us. Other probable realities via the imagination may not have us in them at all...and/or may have totally bizarre realities in them.
EACH of the infinite probable realities continue...they do not end when we choose which one to use. These infinite probable realities that continue--then
each have their ever-growing infinite probable realities as the "you" in that probable reality makes it's choices.
Then, throw into the mix the
infinite dream realities of these probable realities and the dream and probable realities of the dream selves...you can get a glimpse of the amazing EXPANSION of the universe and/or multiverses based on the ever-expanding, unending and infinite dream and probable realities.
Quote from: LarryH on December 05, 2021, 10:16:03 AMwhen I come to a decision point and both decisions are followed through, creating a new universe, that means that there is another "me" with a different future in that new probability.
There are infinite probable and dream Larry's. There are a great many key decisions each day.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited. The Material didn't leave me with the impression that the number approaches infinity.
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on December 06, 2021, 11:03:20 PMI think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited. The Material didn't leave me with the impression that the number approaches infinity.
Hi Caleb, I do choose my words carefully...altho I can obviously sometimes make mistakes. Additionally, I have studied the Seth material for many decades—equally using my own intuition and inner awareness. Altho, I can sometimes make mistakes—but not in this case.
Seth does indeed say that there are INFINITE numbers of probable realities...and dream realities, too, and each forever expanding: Seth (Session 438): The nature of any given PROBABLE action does not lead to any particular inevitable act. Probabilities expand in terms of value fulfillment. One given act does not necessarily lead, then, to act A, B and C, onward to some concluding action. Instead,
it has offshoots in INFINITE directions, and these have offshoots. Seth (Session 446): "There
is no end to the within of things. The dreamer dreams and the dreamer within the dream dreams, and sometimes the dreamers are aware of each other."
Barrie Comments: And it is obvious that the dreamers each have THEIR OWN probable realities which have their own dreams and probable realities etc etc..into infinity
Seth (Session 509): The inner self has a
vast and INFINITE reservoir from which to draw knowledge and experience. All kinds of choices are available, and the diversity of physical matter is a reflection of this deep source of variety.
Seth (Session 530): "After death in your terms, you are quite free perceptively. The future appears as clearly as the past. Even this is highly complicated, however, for there is not just one past. You accept as real only certain classifications of events and ignore others. We have mentioned events.
There are also PROBABLE pasts, therefore, that exist quite outside of your comprehension. You choose one particular group of these, and latch upon this group of events as the only ones possible,
not realizing that you have selected from an INFINITE variety of past events." Seth (Session 531): "At a very simple level, for example, your consciousness leaves your body often in the sleep state. You communicate with people in other levels of reality that you have known, but far beyond this, you creatively maintain and revitalize your physical image. You process daily experience, project it into what you think of as the future,
choose from an INFINIITY of PROBABLE events those you will make physical, and begin the mental and psychic processes that will bring them into the world of substance."
Seth (Session 565): "The soul can be described for that matter, as a multidimensional, INFINITE act,
each minute probability being brought somewhere into actuality and existence; an INFINITE creative act that creates for itself INFINITE dimensions in which fulfillment is possible." Barrie Comments: This quote is significant because one question brought up is what causes a PROBABLE reality to be created? Only the important things?
But how would you know what was going to be important or not--unless you explored all the INFINITE probabilities. In any case, here is Seth saying that
EACH MINUTE PROBABILITY is brought into actuality and existence. I guess it makes sense, you do need a 'large' number to be INFINITE--and it seems limited PROBABLE reality creations to only some events--would not approach INFINITE numbers.
Above, the "impossible" PROBABLE realities are being addressed. Somewhere they ARE actualized into existence--altho not on our known, shared physical reality. Thus, there IS a "place" where each PROBABLE reality exists--including the "impossible" ones--like those in which we have 10 arms and re-grow lost limbs on our whim. Seth (Session 557): "There are, therefore, many other equally valid, equally real evolutionary developments that have occurred and are occurring and will occur, all within other
PROBABLE systems of physical reality. The diverse,
ENDLESS POSSIBILITIES of development possible could never appear within one slender framework of reality."
Seth (Session 560): If you will try to accept the idea that your own existence is multidimensional, that
you dwell within the medium of INFINITE PROBABILITIES, then you may catch a glimpse of the reality that is behind the word "god", and you may understand why it is almost impossible to capture a true understanding of that concept in words.
Seth (Session 658): Think of the present as a pool of experience drawn from many sources, fed, in your terms, by tributaries from both the past and the future.
There are an INFINITE number of such tributaries (PROBABILITIES), and through your beliefs you choose from these, adjusting their currents. Seth (Session 669): "In waking reality, beliefs take time before their materialization is apparent.
From INFINITE PROBABLE acts, only one can be physically experienced as a rule." Seth (Session 684): The precious privacy of your existence, and indeed of your universe, is all the more miraculous, so to speak, precisely because
its PROBABLE reality emerges from an INFINITE field of probabilities, each FOREVER INVIOLATE (UNDERLINED). Barrie Comments: I looked it up in the dictionary:
"Forever inviolate" means that it forever remains intact. In other words, here is Seth directly stating that each PROBABLE reality carries on--and doesn't just end or die out after your 'choice' is made about what to physicalize. In order for it to carry on--there has to be a "me" or a "you" in it.
Thus, if the PROBABLE realities are INFINITE, then there must be "INFINITE" me's (& you's) in them, experiencing them in their ongoing fashion. And the thing is, and this is what I find mindblowing, but fun:
Each PROBABLE reality of these INFINITE numbers--keep ENDLESSLY creating their own "new" INFINITE numbers of PROBABLE realities as each "me" in them--faces the "next" choice to make. In order to make that choice I would need to explore a new set of INFINITE probabilities. And these would, in turn, create new INFINITE probabilities. So, these INFINITE probabilities keep forever expanding or blossoming in a geometric fashion--if that is the right term. And, that is not all--it does NOT end there.
Add to this the INFINITE number of inviolate DREAM REALITIES--which also keep geometrically forever expanding--as each of the INFINITE numbers of PROBABLE selves go to sleep & dream.
And, of course,
PROBABLE realities are created by the dream selves--when they have to make a decision or based on THEIR imagination—and dream realities are forever created by the infinite probable selves in THEIR realities. Seth (Session 740): If you would identify with your own psychological reality, following the inward structure of thoughts and feelings, you would discover an
inward psychological INFINIITY. These
"INFINITIES" would reach of course into both an
INFINITE past and future. Yet true INFINIITY reaches far beyond past or future, and INTO ALL PROBABILITIES - not simply straightforward into time, or backward. Seth (Session 789): In the predream state you directly encounter a reality in which those
PROBABILITIES exist all at once to your perception. In a dazzling display
you are aware of such events from INFINITE perspectives. Consciously you could not grasp such information, much less act upon it, nor could you maintain your particular, unique, psychological stance. You still take advantage of that level of being, however, using that immeasurable data as a basis to form the reality that you know.
Seth (Session 823): "Each of you, with your beliefs and intents,
tell the inner ego which of an INFINITE number of PROBABLE events you want to encounter. In the dream state events from both frameworks are processed. The dream state involves not only a state of consciousness that exists between the two frameworks of reality, but also involves, in those terms, a connecting reality of its own."
[/b]
Well since this topic as gone every which way, I thought I'd throw this out. It seems Darryl Anka aka Bashar is/was a Seth fan, which I've wondered about. I just found this out today. BTW Darryl is the brother of the singer Paul Anka. It seems Mary never got around to checking the fan letter from Darryl, so I don't know for sure whether he actually attended a class. Darryl/Bashar also came up in a couple of Seth
Reality Change magazines articles (mid 80s?). If or when I can visit the Yale library, this is one of the things I'll look into. BTW Lawrence was one of the original class members.
@barrie, do you have anything to contribute about this?
Quote from: email between Mary and LawrenceFrom: Mary Dillman
To: Lawrence Davidson
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: Darryl Anka
Hi Lawrence,
It's possible that Darryl attended a class because in the later years everyone wasn't listed in the records. Can't really prove it one way or the other from the records available. I did find a letter in the fan mail from him dated July 1979. I didn't realize it was the Bashar guy so didn't transcribe it. Unfortunately, I can't get to the library for at least a few weeks because I sprained my leg/knee and am housebound. Perhaps the letter will mention something that will indicate previous contact. I'll check it - feel free to remind me this fall if you haven't heard more about it from me. (I sometimes forget....)
Sorry I don't have the information readily available that tells me when you spoke in class.
Mary
Quote from: barrie on December 06, 2021, 02:32:31 AMWe each have INFINITE numbers of probable realities.
Barrie, we need to keep in mind that infinity is a non-existent number:
QuoteHere are some of the contexts in which the question "is there such a thing as infinity" can be asked, and the answers appropriate for each context. The details are given afterwards.
In the context of a number system,
in which "infinity" would mean something one can treat like a number.
In this context, infinity does not exist.
https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on December 06, 2021, 11:03:20 PMI think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited.
Caleb, I agree that that is a better way of putting it.
Quote from: Sena on December 07, 2021, 09:41:40 PMQuoteWe each have INFINITE numbers of probable realities.
Barrie, we need to keep in mind that infinity is a non-existent number:
Quote from: Sena on December 07, 2021, 09:41:40 PMHere are some of the contexts in which the question "is there such a thing as infinity" can be asked, and the answers appropriate for each context. The details are given afterwards.
In the context of a number system,
in which "infinity" would mean something one can treat like a number.
In this context, infinity does not exist.
Quote from: Sena on December 07, 2021, 09:45:40 PMQuote from: Caleb Murdock on December 06, 2021, 11:03:20 PMI think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited.
Caleb, I agree that that is a better way of putting it.
Quote from: Sena on December 07, 2021, 09:45:40 PMQuote from: Caleb Murdock on December 06, 2021, 11:03:20 PMI think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited.
Caleb, I agree that that is a better way of putting it.
Sena and Caleb, Tell it to Seth, not me:
Seth (Session 530): "After death in your terms, you are quite free perceptively. The future appears as clearly as the past. Even this is highly complicated, however, for there is not just one past. You accept as real only certain classifications of events and ignore others. We have mentioned events.
There are also PROBABLE pasts, therefore, that exist quite outside of your comprehension. You choose one particular group of these, and latch upon this group of events as the only ones possible,
NOT REALIZING THAT YOU HAVE SELECTED FROM AN INFINITE VARIETY OF PAST EVENTS." Seth (Session 531): "At a very simple level, for example, your consciousness leaves your body often in the sleep state. You communicate with people in other levels of reality that you have known, but far beyond this, you creatively maintain and revitalize your physical image. You process daily experience, project it into what you think of as the future,
CHOOSE FROM AN INFINIITY OF PROBABLE EVENTS THOSE YOU WILL MAKE PHYSICAL, and begin the mental and psychic processes that will bring them into the world of substance."
Seth (Session 565): "The soul can be described for that matter, as a multidimensional, INFINITE act,
EACH MINUTE PROBABILITY BEING BROUGHT SOMEWHERE INTO ACTUALITY AND EXISTENCE; AN INFINITE CREATIVE ACT THAT CREATES FOR ITSELF INFINITE DIMENSIONS IN WHICH FULFILLMENT IS POSSIBLE." Seth (Session 560): If you will try to accept the idea that your own existence is multidimensional, that
YOU DWELL WITHIN THE MEDIUM OF INFINITE PROBABILITIES, then you may catch a glimpse of the reality that is behind the word "god", and you may understand why it is almost impossible to capture a true understanding of that concept in words.
Seth (Session 658): Think of the present as a pool of experience drawn from many sources, fed, in your terms, by tributaries from both the past and the future.
THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF SUCH TRIBUTARIES (PROBABILITIES), AND THROUGH YOUR BELIEFS YOU CHOOSE FROM THESE, ADJUSTING THEIR CURRENTS. Seth (Session 669): "In waking reality, beliefs take time before their materialization is apparent.
FROM INFINITE PROBABLE ACTS, ONLY ONE CAN BE PHYSICALLY EXPERIENCED AS A RULE." Seth (Session 684): The precious privacy of your existence, and indeed of your universe, is all the more miraculous, so to speak, precisely because
ITS PROBABLE REALITY EMERGES FROM AN INFINITE FIELD OF PROBABILITIES, each forever inviolate (underlined). Seth (Session 740): If you would identify with your own psychological reality, following the inward structure of thoughts and feelings, you would discover an
inward psychological INFINIITY. These
"INFINITIES" would reach of course into both an
INFINITE past and future. YET TRUE INFINIITY REACHES FAR BEYOND PAST OR FUTURE, AND INTO ALL PROBABILITIES - not simply straightforward into time, or backward. Seth (Session 789): In the predream state you directly encounter a reality in which those
PROBABILITIES exist all at once to your perception. In a dazzling display
YOU ARE AWARE OF SUCH EVENTS FROM INFINITE PERSPECTIVES. Consciously you could not grasp such information, much less act upon it, nor could you maintain your particular, unique, psychological stance. You still take advantage of that level of being, however, using that immeasurable data as a basis to form the reality that you know.
Seth (Session 823): "Each of you, with your beliefs and intents,
tell the inner ego WHICH OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF PROBABLE EVENTS YOU WANT TO ENCOUNTER. In the dream state events from both frameworks are processed. The dream state involves not only a state of consciousness that exists between the two frameworks of reality, but also involves, in those terms, a connecting reality of its own."
Sena and Caleb, I'll distill the quotes more to make it a simpler to discern that Seth says there are INFINITE probable realities. You may not like the term, and that is fine. But just know that your comments rightfully should be addressed to Seth...
Seth (Session 530): "You choose one particular group of these, and latch upon this group of events as the only ones possible, not realizing that you have selected FROM AN INFINITE VARIETY OF PAST EVENTS."
Seth (Session 531): " You process daily experience, project it into what you think of as the future, CHOOSE FROM AN INFINIITY OF PROBABLE EVENTS THOSE YOU WILL MAKE PHYSICAL, and begin the mental and psychic processes that will bring them into the world of substance."
Seth (Session 565): "The soul can be described for that matter, as a multidimensional, INFINITE act, EACH MINUTE PROBABILITY BEING BROUGHT SOMEWHERE INTO ACTUALITY AND EXISTENCE; AN INFINITE CREATIVE ACT THAT CREATES FOR ITSELF INFINITE DIMENSIONS IN WHICH FULFILLMENT IS POSSIBLE."
Seth (Session 560): If you will try to accept the idea that your own existence is multidimensional, that YOU DWELL WITHIN THE MEDIUM OF INFINITE PROBABILITIES...
Seth (Session 658): THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF SUCH TRIBUTARIES (PROBABILITIES), and through your beliefs you choose from these, adjusting their currents.
Seth (Session 669): "FROM INFINITE PROBABLE ACTS, only one can be physically experienced as a rule."
Seth (Session 684): "its probable reality emerges from AN INFINITE FIELD OF PROBABILITIES, each forever inviolate (underlined).
Seth (Session 740):. [/b]YET TRUE INFINIITY REACHES FAR BEYOND PAST OR FUTURE, AND INTO ALL PROBABILITIES
Seth (Session 789): In the predream state you directly encounter a reality in which those PROBABILITIES exist all at once to your perception. In a dazzling display YOU ARE AWARE OF SUCH EVENTS FROM INFINITE PERSPECTIVES.
Seth (Session 823): "Each of you, with your beliefs and intents, tell the inner ego which of an INFINITE NUMBER OF PROBABLE EVENTS YOU WANT TO ENCOUNTER.
Quote from: Deb on December 07, 2021, 07:57:17 PMBTW Darryl is the brother of the singer Paul Anka.
Hi Deb, I can't find any mention of Darryl in any class transcript. I would guess that if someone combed thru all of his writings and comments--he would mention various things about Seth, including if he went to a class.
BTW, actually Darryl was Paul's first cousin:
"Darryl Anka was born in Ottawa on October 12, 1951. He moved to Los Angeles as a child where his father, a nightclub entertainer, was expected to become the "next Mario Lanza." Musical fame found its way down another branch of the Anka family tree. Darryl's first cousin is "Puppy Love" crooner, Paul Anka. The cousins don't keep in touch. Darryl began his career as a Hollywood special effects designer, and worked on films such as Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Pirates of the Caribbean, and I Robot."
--https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/19/everything-you-need-to-know-about-paul-ankas-cousin-and-his-multi-dimensional-alien-friend/
"Born in Ottawa Ontario, Darryl is the first cousin of singer Paul Anka."
--http://masterthesecretlawofattraction.com/darryl-anka-bashar
Quote from: barrie on December 08, 2021, 06:46:48 AM--https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/19/everything-you-need-to-know-about-paul-ankas-cousin-and-his-multi-dimensional-alien-friend/
"Darryl has been swindling people this way since 1983, and he has garnered high praise in what is known as the channeling community among people who believe that human beings can communicate with disembodied spirits from other dimensions."
One should not just post such kind of 'sources' without any comment. There are similar verdicts about the Seth material as well.
Seth should be judged by what he communicated, not by the strange sounds he made when communicating through Jane Roberts. The same applies to Bashar/Darryl Anka. One should judge by the quality of the material.
Having said that, it is not my job to defend either. As far as I understand, their teachings are basically free of inherent contradictions and they make sense e.g. in the context of the 'Virtual Reality Theory' of Tom Campbell.
If I were Darryl Anka I would take the above source to court.
Quote from: Tob on December 08, 2021, 07:11:25 AMOne should not just post such kind of 'sources' without any comment. There are similar verdicts about the Seth material as well.
Seth should be judged by what he communicated, not by the strange sounds he made when communicating through Jane Roberts. The same applies to Bashar/Darryl Anka. One should judge by the quality of the material.
The excerpted part of that article simply said that the Ankas were cousins.
As for Seth and judging him, Everyone I ever met or talked to--judged Seth by the quality of his material-as did Jane and Rob--who never would have continued with Seth if not for the quality of the material.
Quote from: barrie on December 08, 2021, 06:46:48 AMHi Deb, I can't find any mention of Darryl in any class transcript. I would guess that if someone combed thru all of his writings and comments--he would mention various things about Seth, including if he went to a class.
OK thanks for checking. And thanks for the correction on family relations, for some reason I thought I'd read years ago they were brothers. I did come across a short letter from Darryl to Jane from July 1979. I can't share it entirely for copyright reasons, but it was about a project he was proposing, Project Ezekiel, "to create this planet's first fully realized starship." He didn't mention anything about attending sessions.
Other than that, I found nothing about him attending sessions other than this page (https://apocalypse-how.com/darryl-anka/), which isn't specific on the "source" of the information. So, who knows. It doesn't really matter, I just thought it was interesting.
Quote from: Tob on December 08, 2021, 07:11:25 AMOne should not just post such kind of 'sources' without any comment. There are similar verdicts about the Seth material as well.
And this is the age of "information." ::) I remember seeing on another forum a person bashing Jane, saying she was a raging alcoholic and he referred to the YT video of her channeling Seth as proof. He also said that she was a nut job and died from alcoholism. People say all kinds of nasty things without substantiating their claims. Even the media does it. It's always a challenge to separate facts from opinions.
Quote from: Deb on December 08, 2021, 12:03:49 PMQuote from: barrie on December 08, 2021, 06:46:48 AMHi Deb, I can't find any mention of Darryl in any class transcript. I would guess that if someone combed thru all of his writings and comments--he would mention various things about Seth, including if he went to a class.
OK thanks for checking. And thanks for the correction on family relations, for some reason I thought I'd read years ago they were brothers. I did come across a short letter from Darryl to Jane from July 1979. I can't share it entirely for copyright reasons, but it was about a project he was proposing, Project Ezekiel, "to create this planet's first fully realized starship." He didn't mention anything about attending sessions.
Other than that, I found nothing about him attending sessions other than this page (https://apocalypse-how.com/darryl-anka/), which isn't specific on the "source" of the information. So, who knows. It doesn't really matter, I just thought it was interesting.
Quote from: Tob on December 08, 2021, 07:11:25 AMOne should not just post such kind of 'sources' without any comment. There are similar verdicts about the Seth material as well.
And this is the age of "information." ::) I remember seeing on another forum a person bashing Jane, saying she was a raging alcoholic and he referred to the YT video of her channeling Seth as proof. He also said that she was a nut job and died from alcoholism. People say all kinds of nasty things without substantiating their claims. Even the media does it. It's always a challenge to separate facts from opinions.
Thank you. The content of these two pages corresponds more or less to the information usually provided by Darryl Anka regarding the beginnings. I never heard him say the words 'Seth', 'Jane Roberts', etc.
https://apocalypse-how.com/darryl-anka/
http://masterthesecretlawofattraction.com/darryl-anka-bashar
'Channeling class' and 'teacher' is the maximum you get to hear. Thus, the information provided by the first source above clearly 'goes beyond'.
There was a time when there were several thousand privately produced Bashar videos on youtube, enabling the discussion of his teachings in the comments sections. I remember to have read once or twice about a connection to the Seth events.
But as of today there was no statement to that effect made by Darryl Anka in public.
By the way. The picture is Darryl Anka, not Bashar. He looks different.
Quote from: barrie on December 08, 2021, 06:19:44 AMSena and Caleb, Tell it to Seth, not me:
Barrie, the question here is how much of Seth's teaching as transmitted to us is
literally true, and how much is open to interpretation. To my knowledge, Seth did not claim to be omniscient. We cannot assume that Jane transmitted Seth's thoughts perfectly, and it may well be that Rob added his own interpretation when writing down the material.
Just as I reject the infallibility of the Pope's ex cathedra statements, I reject any claim that the Seth writings are infallible.
Seth said he was a minor Pope in a previous incarnation, but did he claim to be an infallible Pope when speaking through Jane?
Quote from: Sena on December 08, 2021, 10:28:58 PMBarrie, the question here is how much of Seth's teaching as transmitted to us is literally true
Hi Sena,
Sena Writes: Barrie, the question here is how much of Seth's teaching as transmitted to us is literally true, and how much is open to interpretation. To my knowledge, Seth did not claim to be omniscient. We cannot assume that Jane transmitted Seth's thoughts perfectly..."
Barrie Responds: Sena,
you speak the OBVIOUS...and thanks for
changing the question here. The question here was
NEVER about how much Seth's teachings are literally true. The question IS and WAS
did SETH actually USE the term "infinity" in regard to probable realities. I personally don't care who agrees or disagrees with that. Everyone should feel free to disagree with that or anything else Seth says all they want.
But the FACT is Caleb Had Written (#181): "I think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited.
The Material didn't leave me with the impression that the number approaches infinity.Barrie Responds: It was to
THAT that I had responded that
Seth did indeed say there were infinite numbers of probable realities--and he definitely DID leave that impression. And I never said. added or thought that it was an infallible statement.
When did this thread morph into a discussion if Seth was infallible? Never...except in your head, maybe. It seems the goal posts of some discussions often get moved to something else.
BUT, if that WAS the question: Do you want to know what I think, feel and believe about what you NOW bring up:You, me and EVERYONE are free to
and SHOULD disagree with ANYTHING that Seth says...with my blessings that no one needs.
And you, me and EVERYONE are free to say, "Seth is WRONG and full of shit in regards to....(fill in the blank),"...with my blessings that no one needs.
Even in
this thread I said in Message # 187: Barrie Had Said:
"You may not like the term, and that is fine. But just know that your comments rightfully should be addressed to Seth..."Barrie NOW Writes: I said this because SETH was the one who repeatedly used the term "infinite" in regard to probable realities. I did
not say this thinking that Seth was infallible or anything close to that.
THAT never even entered my mind.Sena Continues: "and it may well be that Rob added his own interpretation when writing down the material."
Barrie Responds: Well,
IF you mean Rob's transcribing in longhand what Seth said--then this I do fully disagree with. There is absolutely
no evidence of this...and
Seth would have corrected Rob if he did so. IF you are claiming that the actually words Seth said in his books may not even be what Seth said because Rob changed them--then I disagree fully.
YOU can believe that all you want, tho. THIS is very different than disagreeing with WHAT Seth said.
You now say that Seth may not have even said things in the book.
ONCE you go down that rabbit hole,
the door is open for anyone to say anything about the Seth material but adding, "Well, this is what he WOULD HAVE SAID if Rob wrote it down correctly." And believe me or not, that type of argument has been made a number of times--when Seth was in disagreement with what someone believed. They did
not simply say, "Well, I disagree with Seth." They actually say that
Seth WOULD HAVE said it, but...Sena Continues: "I reject any claim that the Seth writings are infallible."
Barrie Responds:
Who made that claim? I never in my whole life made any claim close to that. In fact, I always made the opposite claim.
For just one example: This is how I
started my 11-10-09 Seth Presentation called: How Deeply Embedded In The Seth Material Is The Concept Of Not Hurting And Actually Helping Others?
Barrie Had Written: "First, I'd like to state what I hope
will always be
one major ground rule
That I believe is key to everything,
Which, of course, includes the Seth material,And it is this:
"In any discussion or presentation of the type I am about to give,
Or any type:
"In the end,
TRUST yourselves first and foremost over everyone else—
Listen to what others say, listen to what I say, listen to what Seth says--
And then TRUST and listen to your SELF as you assess it all
And hold onto whatever rings true deep down inside you,
And throw away or put on hold—everything else."Allow me to add one more thing:
Be brave in questioning yourself
Be brave in delving within.
Be prepared to find answers and new questions
You never dreamed possible
Or that may even scare you.
You are always giving messages to yourself
If you have the willingness to listen...
"One of the bravest things you can do, in my opinion,
Is to take these inner journeys of self-awareness
Part of which is to examine what you believe and why
In light of your new experiences
Which includes what happens every day,
And what happens here today.
"And THEN, of course, to TRUST yourself,
Which means to be willing to modify, change, or
Hold onto more firmly—
Any beliefs which come into play."
Quote from: barrie on December 09, 2021, 01:12:59 AMBarrie Had Said: "You may not like the term, and that is fine. But just know that your comments rightfully should be addressed to Seth..."
Barrie, if anyone addresses comments to Seth, he/she may be delusional. Seth is not a person in physical reality to whom one could rationally address comments.
Quote from: LarryH on December 05, 2021, 10:16:03 AMThanks everybody for your responses. Now I have a different question: when I come to a decision point and both decisions are followed through, creating a new universe, that means that there is another "me" with a different future in that new probability. Seth talked about only two other probable Robs, though he was not necessarily saying that they were the only other probable Robs. There are those who say that moment by moment, we are creating new probabilities, which would mean that there is a virtually infinite number of "me's". Even if we assume that there are on average one key decision per year that causes a new probability, and each probable self continues to split once a year, that means that in 20 years, there would be 1,048,576 "me's", over a trillion "me's" after 40 years, etc. Do you think I would ever to be able to integrate all of those "me's" at a "greater self" level?
Seth does mention being able to communicate with them and sending them love for example all at once... Seth talks about what you just asked... if i can find it i will post it
Quote from: Sena on December 09, 2021, 01:48:30 AMQuote from: barrie on December 09, 2021, 01:12:59 AMBarrie Had Said: "You may not like the term, and that is fine. But just know that your comments rightfully should be addressed to Seth..."
Barrie, if anyone addresses comments to Seth, he/she may be delusional. Seth is not a person in physical reality to whom one could rationally address comments.
Better yet, ask your entity.
The self is not limited.
There are no boundaries or separations to the self.
Therefor, ask Seth. ;D
There is also nothing to stop anyone from asking Seth. There are no blocks in your way unless you think there are. If you find those blocks make a new block to block their view so you can ask Seth.
Also work with the pendulums. Your subconscious has invaluable information.
Quote from: strangerthings on January 31, 2022, 04:55:32 PMThere is also nothing to stop anyone from asking Seth. There are no blocks in your way unless you think there are. If you find those blocks make a new block to block their view so you can ask Seth.
Strangerthings, Anyone can ask Seth anything they want.
That doesn't change the FACT that Seth said he has CHOSEN to only communicate via Jane in order to maintain the intergrity and authenticity of the material--and to avoid great distortion. He also has said that BOTH Jane and Rob were needed for him to come thru at all.Seth also said that people use his name because
they are afraid of being their own authority AND also that they use his name as a SYMBOL for their own inner communication:
Seth (Deleted Session, 7-2-77, longer version): "Many of the people who read my books...realize that the authorities know far less than they originally supposed.
They are afraid, however, of going out on their own, so to speak...
"
They do not trust themselves. They do not have the stamina, or the resoluteness, however, yet, to face a reality in which THEY are the creators of their circumstances. They no longer TRUST religion or science in organizational terms...They must accept the fact that Ruburt...will dare to follow the dictates of the inner self, and this makes the entire affair more frightening to them...
"... and since they distrust themselves they cannot really understand how the two of YOU trust yourselves as much as you do.
They use MY position as a substitute for the authority they are trying to give up. They think "IF I HAD A SETH, I too would progress...." Seth (Deleted Session 7-2-77): "People become FRIGHTENED sometimes...
They want to think that I spring AUTOMATICALLY into your lives, as SUPERMAN. They did not question Superman. Only a simple change of clothing was required for our hero, Mr. Kent. They do NOT want Ruburt's inquiring mind to intrude.
"
What comic book reader wants to bother with a CLARK KENT ... Or worse--wants Clark Kent to shout out from the phone booth, or wherever: "You can do (YOUR VERSION) of this too because we ALL have a reality in which we are Clark Kent AND Superman at one and the same time"?
Such people simply want Superman to PERFORM his miracles."They want to keep Clark Kent and Superman entirely SEPARATE on a mental, psychical, and physical basis, and ONLY in the terms of our analogy...I become a SUPERSOUL rather than SUPERMAN. They do NOT want my AUTHORITY questioned...They think that if THEY had their OWN SUPERSOUL they would have FAR better sense than Ruburt, and they would use me as if I were a MAGIC GENIE. They are afraid Ruburt might...QUESTION ME OUT OF EXISTENCE, for they do NOT understand that Ruburt's questions, and YOURS (Rob's), your sense of integrity, are partially responsible for a "superman" rather than a SUPERMOUSE."
Seth as SYMBOL in Dreams, out of bodies, automatic writing, and other communications:Seth (ESP Class, 3-12-74): Class Member: "Seth, would you help me in my DREAMS if I tried to contact you?"
Seth Responds: "You help yourself in your own dreams. You do not need me. You may use the
SYMBOL of me, but when you do, it is a
SYMBOL OF YOUR OWN INNER KNOWLEDGE, for I am the S
YMBOL OF THE KNOWLEDGE THAT DWELLS WITHIN EACH OF YOUR PSYCHES. I am MYSELF, but beyond that I am the SYMBOL of the knowledge that dwells within each of your psyches."
Jane (God of Jane, 1981): "(A) man 'in contact' with Seth...wanted to inform me that I'd distorted Seth's material on Christ, and that Seth had TOLD him so!...Good Christ!' I muttered irritably to Rob when I read the letter. What about the other two people who wrote last year, each with their own versions of Christ's life, each contradicting the other, and each supposedly containing corrections from Seth?'...
I'd written the man a brief note explaining that he was free to believe what he wanted about Christ's life -- that
HE WASN'T IN CONTACT WITH SETH, BUT WITH HIS OWN SYMBOLIZED VERSION OF WHO OR WHAT HE THOUGHT SETH WAS." Jane (Chap.9, 1970, Seth Material): "Mrs. Brian had a terrific headache while reading the article (about Seth); suddenly she thought she felt Seth's presence. An inner voice, presumably Seth's, told her that she had been feeling sorry for herself that she must stop brooding over her health at once, get up, and go out for a walk. If SO, she would improve at once....
"We asked Seth about the incident. In this case, he said, Mrs. Brian had
USED HIM AS A SYMBOL OF HER INNER SELF, or SUPRACONSCIOUSNESS, to deliver help and healing influences as well as advice. The experience helped the woman to use her own abilities, and the IDEA of Seth ENABLED HER TO ACTIVATE HER OWN HEALING FORCES."
Seth (Session 876, 8-27-79): "A woman wrote that she was involved with. . . correspondences in which I was communicating with her, and she was certain that this would prove beyond a doubt my own independent nature, since I [would have given] messages to another medium besides Ruburt. The woman was quite convinced of that.
"Other people have written that I have given them such messages. Another woman DREAMED of me; and had an experience in which a child was definitely healed. Now,
I DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THOSE WOMEN—BUT THEIR BELIEF IN ME HELPED EACH OF THEM USE CERTAIN ABILITIES. One woman has done some writing—not very good—but still, those abilities came to the fore. The other woman was able to use her OWN healing abilities."
All of that is for me ?
Ok
But that is not what I was referring to... have you seen my posts regarding the people that pretend to channel Jane and Seth? ;D
I understand ALL of that 100%
I recommend people commune with their own inner being before trying to contact Seth.
Its WAY more important.
Quote from: strangerthings on February 01, 2022, 04:07:36 AMI recommend people commune with their own inner being before trying to contact Seth.
Yes. I agree. But I would say to forget about trying to contact Seth...and continue to try to contact themselves, their inner voice, their own version of what Seth was to Jane, etc.
Quote from: barrie on February 01, 2022, 06:15:26 AMQuote from: strangerthings on February 01, 2022, 04:07:36 AMI recommend people commune with their own inner being before trying to contact Seth.
Yes. I agree. But I would say to forget about trying to contact Seth...and continue to try to contact themselves, their inner voice, their own version of what Seth was to Jane, etc.
100% agree