~Speaking of Seth~

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 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 AM

Quote 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