~Speaking of Seth~

I get the same impression for both of these gals.  I sense the gal on the left is sending out a disruptive frequency with her expectations.
And Yes, my baseline is Seth. 

This is what Kryon says about Christ and Buddha:
"The idea of accepting the redemption of what took place on the cross doesn't even relate to the real purpose of the master of love, who was the Christ. That entire scenario was created later from a false assumption, and did well for those who would control the population with religion (which history will show they did). The Buddha (Siddhartha) also has not had his full true passion revealed. The teachings of both were sequestered early on, and revamped to suit the needs of those who would be in control of the teachings."

"The above information may sadden you, but be aware that you can "tap" in to both of these great masters anytime you wish. And when you do, you'll discover that the truth is the same. The ultimate liberation for all beings is within you. You're eternally assured of peace with God because you are a piece of God. Even the master Christ told you that you could be exactly like him... a son of God."

http://kryon.com/inspiritmag/archives/Q-A%20archives/2003-Q%26A/Q%26A-4thquarter.html#18

Despite the distortions, those message are still there in the creatively "edited" bible books that exist today.
and those same ideas are backed up by the Nag Hammadi  and Dead Sea Scrolls which have been translated over several decades and are now easy available to the public along with various commentaries, and textual comparisons with different sources, notations of difference and similarities.
The later organised Church and the Romans were incapable of truly stamping out the power of Jesus's message(s), such is their resonance that his frequency is symbolically anchored here in our world for anyone to tune in to.

Heart of Christ
Heart in Christ

I've been meditating on those two phrases this week, both lead to a direct experiential insight into (one of) Christ's teachings. Particularly when contemplated with readings of the Gospels etc.

"(11:52.) One of the Gospels is counterfeit — that is, it was written after the others, and the events twisted to make it appear that some of them happened in a completely different context than they did. Regardless, Christ's message was one of affirmation.
(Jane, in trance, paused as I looked up questioning. "I was going to ask which Gospel is counterfeit, because we're sure to get letters about that. ")
It was not Mark's or John's. There are particular reasons why I do not want to specify now."
The Nature of Personal Reality, p.417,418

I think that it is Luke's.

It seems the Christ personality has already returned. It's us, according to this book I've just started reading. Sorry for the lengthy quotes. I actually could have added much more...

The Book of Knowing and Worth: A Channeled Text
Paul Selig
From the Introduction (Day 1):

The aspect of the Divine that you are and have always been intended to be has come forward to be renamed: "I know who I am, I know what I am, I know how I serve." And the claim of this, as you create from it, expressed as you, culminates in a new awakening of your own being through the manifestations of the self as the Christ.

Now we don't mean this in a heretical way. We mean this is in the most truthful way available to you. The aspect of the Creator that maybe manifested in form is how we talk of the Christ. And the Christ as you, as you, as you is the teaching of this text. Can man be Christ? Man is Christ but has not awakened to it. The awakening that we speak of is the inheritance of the Creator born in each and every individual awakened to his own worth, to her own worth, as a manifestation of the Creator in form.

I know who I am, I know what I am, I know how I serve. And as I sing, I know. And as I know, I incarnate as my true self. And the true self I speak of is the Christ in manifestation as man.

You are worth what you say you are. You always have been. If you say you are worth two dollars, you will call yourself two dollars; you will claim two dollars and not a penny more. When you know you are the Christ, the aspect of the Creator that may be in form, by the level of knowing and design and creation that is available at that level of consciousness, you claim your identity in a new way and your world, your world, your world will reflect this.

Now Paul is wondering, are we telling mankind that they are the Christ? And yes, we are. But you have not known the magnificence of who and what you are because you have not been attuned to the possibility that it can be so. It has been made so already. The way was shown to you many times, but what you have done as a civilization is adhere to paradigms that will tell you this cannot be so. You relinquish your authority, you each relinquish your authority every time that you agree that you are small, that you are dominated by a structure that must know more than you.

Everything you see before you, everything you see, you have agreed to. Do you know this? Everything on the self of your cabinets, everything on the street, everything in the sky you have agreed to. It could not be there if it was not agreed to by you collectively and individually we will say, because the individual is an aspect of the collective whole.

Quote from: DebIt seems the Christ personality has already returned. It's us, according to this book I've just started reading.

This fits to some extent with the one quote from St. Paul which impressed me:
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

I would take out the phrase "I am crucified with Christ" - it may be a distortion added by the Church grandees.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+2%3A20&version=KJV

I've already posted this article elsewhere, but it's on a similar track so may be of interest to people:

Did Jesus Really Exist? Christ Consciousness as Mankind's Natural State

https://seedsofinfinity.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/did-jesus-really-exist-christ-consciousness-as-mankinds-natural-state/

A sub topic to that post was covered in this article,

I AM GOD – The God in You

https://seedsofinfinity.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/i-am-god-the-god-in-you/


Which is an article on Seth topics, that also incorporates ideas from Wayne Dyer and the Hebrew sacred names of God.

I think that All That Is is like an organism.
As hair on head is part of body as man is part of All That Is.
It is my opinion.

Christ the extraterrestrial?

http://www.jesuswasaspacealien.com/

Quote from: SenaChrist the extraterrestrial?

I believe it. Totally. 

I do have to admit some of the art in the video made me wonder what all that was about.

Quote from: DebI believe it. Totally.

Deb, I think this version is more likely to be true than the BS put out by the Christian Church - That human beings are irredeemably sinful from birth and only the death of Christ could save them.

Actually I was kidding. I realize that web site is satyrical, made by Noodle Muffin, to quote them, "Noodle Muffin is an underground, Indie band known for their biting samples, eclectic sound, catchy melodies, twisted, humorous lyrics, and brutal commentary on the absurdity of the Mass Media and American society." They have a new song out, "Morning in America." It's about the election 'Trump: Make America Hate Again!'

But yes, I agree it's no less believable than what we've been told by organized religion. I like Seth's version the best.

I've got agree. I like the Seth version better too.

I do have to admit though that there are certain parts of my Catholic and New Thought background that I find I'm reluctant to give up. Such as certain elements of prayers of gratitude and The Five Denials stated in Scientific Christian Mental Practice. Thus far, I see that simply as an individual matter of choice and not in opposition to what Seth had to say. I could be off base, but it seems okay to me.

Well gratitude can only raise your vibration and draw more good things into your life, whether it's law of attraction or the power of the mind creating things.

What are The Five Denials?

I agree, gratitude has really worked, particularly in my general outlook. And the Five Denials have worked great wth that too. I'll try to attach a snip of them.

 The Christ will teach the individual to get in touch with his own entity, which as Seth says is to some extent his mediator to ATI.
   
   The entity or inner self is that being who has complete knowledge of all incarnations + is in fact the creative aspect that gave birth to the individual self as it is, in (any) physical reality.

   If you have contact with the entity then you will know all of the incarnations of which you have been a part, + if you are lucky , of which you will be a part.

   And yet the entity is more than this as it also has its non-physical existence which is closer to ATI + is aware of itself as a self cons's that is a part of action + part of the true identity which is a part of ATI (see the 3 dilemmas). 

   As physiclly oriented beings with an ego we are to some great extent seperated from our entitys + ATI because we imagine ourselves to be the initiators of action + seperate ourselves from the events that we percieve + imagine that we have initiated.

   As Seth says, we , because of our seperation (our ego's) , have to be spoon fed little bits + pieces of reality which we can then organise into the realities that we then experience thru our beliefs of what we think is or is not possible. 

   If you have read your Seth then you will know that the ego + its qualities is in fact a creation of the body cons' as it strove to maintain its stabilty as a being apart from the simultanaeity of true reality, which then became the dreaming self , + which again the ego imagines it has itself created, haha.

   The ego has yet to grow up + become aware of itself as a part of the entity + a part of action itself. This is why the Christ will return , to help us overcome the rampant egotism that views itself as the initiator of the action + dependent only upon itself . We are all dependant beings , if the entity or ATI were for a one moment to withdraw its support (its creation of us)  we would not be existent at all. 

   The Christ entity is a reality who had its first experience as a part of the first creation of ATI , which is why He is said to be the son of God, He has direct contact with ATI.

   All of the other channels are like a bubble gum pop to the ego , only Seth , who channelled his work from Seth2 demands that one gives a more serious consideration to reality as it is not just the flowery airy fairy aspects that enchant + entrance so many.

    regards, paul

Quote from: JimKWe are all dependant beings , if the entity or ATI were for a one moment to withdraw its support (its creation of us)  we would not be existent at all.

@voidypaul That's kind of a curious thought. I've been in contact with my entity and am told/made aware/informed that it has never withdrawn it's support of it's creations...causing non-existence. nor would it consider such an action.

Quote from: JimKThat's kind of a curious thought. I've been in contact with my entity and am told/made aware/informed that it has never withdrawn it's support of it's creations...causing non-existence. nor would it consider such an action.

Jim, it is the teaching of the Christian church that we are all dependent beings. That is one of the beliefs that I am trying to question. It is true that all consciousness is inter-dependent. All That Is depends on us.

Quote from: Senait is the teaching of the Christian church that we are all dependent beings. That is one of the beliefs that I am trying to question. It is true that all consciousness is inter-dependent. All That Is depends on us.

Sena, I understand what you said and I am in complete agreement.

Sometimes I do have a difficult time understanding what is being said or meant and so I get off track. And sometimes semantics drives me completely crazy because there's so many words that are equal/equivalent/inter-changeable/similar/etc - inner self, higher self, soul, over-soul, entity - just to cite A Few. Sometimes it seems like the list could go on and on forever. Thanks for the assist!

   Hi Jim , yes its a curious even alarming thought + although it is true , i agree with you + your entity that ATI's support  will never be withdrawn + all universal manifestations go out of existence, not in the sense that it is being used here anyway.

   i have mentioned b4 that there are other mystical concepts such as the Hindu Pralaya in which their supreme being, similar to ATI , after a great cycle,  sort of wraps up or withdraws its creation(s) from material manifestation , + returns all being(s)  to their basic non physical cons' + holds them in a sort of stasis or nonbeing , in their potential state until He reawakens them to restart creation again. Sort of like ATI nodding off for a while .   I believe that Seth has somewhere mentioned such a concept tho i could not tell where.

   Hi Sena ,  yes the Christ did teach of our dependency as we are all dependent upon ATI for the continual simultaneous creation without which we would never be existent . As Jim says above it is unlikely that ATI would ever withdraw His support, but support it is + this is the reason (or one of them) that all being sing the praise of this Divine + ineffable being .It is a true inner relgious sense (this recognition of dependency or support from ATI) that is inherent in all being , but not as present religions would have it.

  Yes of course you are right Sena , we are all inter-dependent as we are all made up of the cons units that Seth spks of , + alltho i agree in some sense that ATI is dependent on us to create ever new eccentric versions of Himself , ATI is in no way dependent upon any part or portion of its own creations for His own reality or existence as HE transcends all of it without exception . The dependence always works the other way around + we should be thankful for that as our own bodies + even our own minds + free will are  gifts so that we can be who + what we wish to be.

  There is also nonbeing , in Seths terms , a state in which all probabilities + possibilities of cons' are blocked from expression (a very difficult concept even for sethies to digest) . Similar to the pralaya state + Buddhist Jhana/Nirvana .It is a condition wherin the self can go 'back' to its primal potential state b4 any sort of manifestation .It is a potential CU before its actualisation . i call it the pure void state of cons' , or nonbeing/suspension .     

  regards, paul

Quote from: voidypaulATI is in no way dependent upon any part or portion of its own creations for His own reality or existence as HE transcends all of it without exception

Paul, I think you may be confusing ATI with the Jewish/Christian God. The Jewish/Christian God is a subordinate being who went off at a tangent. It is interesting that you use the word "transcends". The concept of the transcendence of God is a concept used by Christian theologians to hammer opponents into submission. I understand ATI to be immanent and not transcendent. I go with Giordano Bruno and Spinoza. Bruno was burnt at the stake for his beliefs. I think he was one of the black sheep of the universe described by Seth (I am not saying that Seth specifically mentioned Bruno).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence

Peter Skafish in his PhD thesis on Jane Roberts, highlights Jane's understanding of ATI as being purely immanent:

"Roberts' own understanding of "God" and "being" as laid out in chapters two and three is certainly
immanetists in this sense: beyond treating the divine as something inextricable from actuality and thus
undoing its traditional status as a transcendent origin, Jane also refuses to treat "spirit" or "spiritual
consciousness" (terms she adamantly believes in) as coming prior to actuality and phenomenality. Actualities
and temporal presences are not derived from the "potential field" she often speak of; intead, they and this field
are mutually constitutive of each other, and are within a sphere that, as we saw her say in chapter four, has
"no outside." In this sense, she is a Spinozist and/or "immanentist" in her vernacular ontology, and is
referred to as such throughout this chapter." (I think this refers to Chapters two and three of "The God of Jane", a book which I have not been able to obtain)

http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Skafish_berkeley_0028E_11602.pdf

Regards, Sena

Quote from: voidypaulthere are other mystical concepts such as the Hindu Pralaya in which their supreme being, similar to ATI , after a great cycle,  sort of wraps up or withdraws its creation(s) from material manifestation , + returns all being(s)  to their basic non physical cons' + holds them in a sort of stasis or nonbeing , in their potential state until He reawakens them to restart creation again. Sort of like ATI nodding off for a while .   I believe that Seth has somewhere mentioned such a concept tho i could not tell where.

Hi Paul - thanks for your followup and clarification and expansion. It's really quite interesting. I'm looking forward to doing some research on the subject of ATI and cycles of creation and/or re-release, if I'm getting the concept right.

Quote from: voidypaulATI's support  will never be withdrawn

I'm behind here, admittedly. Wanted to respond to this line of thought a while ago. In my mind, if we are ATI and ATI is us, then ATI's support can't be withdrawn, can it? Withdrawing support of 'us' would be withdrawing support of itself— all that is. It's not possible.

Quote from: voidypaulThere is also nonbeing , in Seths terms , a state in which all probabilities + possibilities of cons' are blocked from expression

Eben Alexander is a neurosurgeon who had the most improbable case of meningitis (caused I think by E.coli bacteria, just about impossible). He was in a coma (probably should have died), made a complete recovery and later wrote a book about his near-death experience. I actually got to listen to him speak at that same off-beat church where I've seen people like Deepak, Joe Dispenza, Elizabeth Gilbert, Brené Brown, a few others (lucky, lucky me!).  Eben is very low-key, well-spoken, convincing.

Anyway, your comment sparked a memory of one part of his experience which I could not understand. Of course, how he describes his memories are how his brain interpreted what he experienced, inaccurately since there are probably no words or other experiences for him to form an explanation of what he says he witnessed.

So, here goes:

"The first thing I remember deep in my coma was this expanse, I was ...it was as if I were underground or in more accurately, I think, kind of in very dirty jello because I had this sense that I could kind of sense what was around me going out many feet. But it was all very dark and murky. At no point did I have a body image at all. This was just awareness of being in that realm. It was very kind of coarse, murky, kind of a dark reddish brown if anything. It was very foamy and kind of bubbling. In kind of later stages I would even remember faces, generally kind of unrecognizable animal faces that would kind of boil up out of it and then some roar or chant and then they would go back into it. And there was a pounding machinery type sound that was deep beneath. And I remember a very strong sensation of roots, of black, kind of itchy, tickly roots around me, too, so it was very much like being underground. And again, a lot of it was just like being in this mass of dirty jello where I couldn't really see very far. I often liken it to looking out a window on an absolutely pitch-black night in a pouring rainstorm with water streaming down the windowpane and trying to make out what is outside. It was...Nothing was in focus. Even though I had no language and no words, I do remember having this intense curiosity. You know, what is this? And there would never be any answer, never any response, never anything. It's like I didn't exist in terms of responsiveness. And that went for a very very long time. It had a very foamy kind of quality to it, kind of  bubbling and murky and part of how I put that together when I was writing it all up was that that was the fact that my memory formation was not working very well at all. And my best interpretation of that whole realm which I call the earthworm's eye view is that it was the best consciousness that my brain could muster when it was soaking in pus. That was the very best I could come up with. I felt like I was in that realm for months or years. It was very long because I had no memory of anything before. No memory at all. Zero. Words, concepts of humans, earth, this universe, you know, family, all that kind of thing ... totally gone. There was none of that."

Quote from: DebIn my mind, if we are ATI and ATI is us, then ATI's support can't be withdrawn, can it? Withdrawing support of 'us' would be withdrawing support of itself— all that is. It's not possible.

Deb, you have put it in a nutshell.

 Hi Sena ,
                  I don't think so Sena , no confusion here.
                  I understand your condemnation of the jewish/christian god as it is used in your example to pummel the nonbelievers into submission etc but in some things they were right Sena, + this is one of them . The Christ did pass on much valid information , tho so much has been distorted.
         
       I don't yet have the quotes from Seth to hand (+ lord knows i wish i had but im not the encyclopedic type) so you will have to wait for them for the while. But my reading of Seth is that ATI is both immanent + transcendent , or one would have it as the scientists do , that there is a creation out of nothing + this is not so.

       The transcendent portions of ATI are exactly those ones that brought about the creation to begin with.
       There is always that portion of ATI .         
       All of the dreams + imaginings of ATI (us, His creations) took place in an area of cons' that was, is , + allways will be beyond time + space  + beyond any + all creation or manifestation of any universal system whatsoever + so , is , transcendent .

       Seth has said many times that no one creation can hold or contain the unendurable reality of the whole of ATI, it is not possible. So there will always be that portion which does not or cannot be manifested + this also is the transcendent ATI.     See the 1st dilemma .


       Seth has said that ''ATI lost a portion of Himself'' when He gave actuality to His dreams but it was just a portion, not the whole , the other portions of ATI being those transcendent ones . 
       

       Seth also mentions a made up word of his own , the ''extral'' value which is that portion of the whole or apparent whole , that is more than the sum of its parts , ATI being the ultimate in those terms , the ultimate in transcendence .

       Actually there are numerous examples which i will find reference for you in good time . All of this obviously means that you + i + all other beings are also transcendent of course .

       As for Mr Ska-fish, (i like a bit of ska myself) he has his opinions (which you nessisarily quote only in part) but which i personally think on reflection of the whole of the Seth material , are misguided + innacurate tho in his narrow terms from the quotes given , i can see where he might be coming from , but his opinion is only partial + in my opinion untrue to Seths complete teachings .
       It must be added that neither Jane nor Rob completely understood the Seth material so Jane was allways going to misinterpret things + say so, like she hated the idea of reincarnation + it took Seth quite a while to get her to understand , let alone accept it as fact. So not all that she said can be taken as gospel , so to spk.


            regards , paul

 Hi Jim ,
                 my pleasure mate + yes you do have the concept right . I love this subject , its the most mysterious of all + tho i have no great knowledge of other mystery schools , i was most struck by the Hindu pralaya / Parabrhaman + before Seth came along they were the only other terms (besides the immaterial jhana/nirvana of the Buddhists)  i had found that correlated with my void states of cons' .    The Hindu's go a little further than most Buddhists in that they posit an immaterial creative force (an ATI) out of which all other manifestation was dreamed into existence in divine fact (b4 the creation).     

                Even some of the scientists (mostly theoretical) expound a cyclic or multidimensional universe(s),  but are way off the mark as they do not grant cons' to it . The scalar field + the vairying depths or conditions they accord to void (or vacuum as they like to call it), are all fine + dandy but again , no cons' there , nothig , nix , nada .... silly billys.   But then they mostly still believe in the BB , which is poppycock , naive + childlike.

                In my view ATI is a bit of a misnomer in some ways as , yes , ATI is all that is but He is more than all that has come into or will come into creation or being .     
                Unless you add to the Is part of the equation, that portion that is more than the sum of all creations (on whatever level) + is therefore transcendent , then ATI only or simply stands for all of manifest or actual creation + one forgets those portions which have yet to come into being , as there is always the intro' of something new + which has never before existed , as Seth says .   

                The cosmic egg , parabarhman/pralaya , jhana/nirvana , void + nonbeing (Seths + mine) , have all got one thing in common + that is the existence of a force or being that is beyond all designations or attempts to categorise or classify it because it is the source out of which they come , + so , is ''greater'' than all of them . The transcendent ATI .     One thing i must always repeat is that nonbeing/void/pralaya + nirvana are not , nonexistence . They are states of total + utter tranquility + quiessence , of absolute nonduality .

                Seth + many others have made great attempts to describe that which is actually indescribable + forever dumbfounds the intellect .
                He came close when descibing this in dreams evolution of the ''before the begining'' , the 1st creation + void + also the undifferentiated states or levels + of course Seth2 . But even most sethies think that there is something tangible or manifest that they can hold on to when the read + imagine it . But it is the invisible + non manifest states we are talking about here + not something that can be imagined by man even in his dreams . Even Seth has said that one must go completely outside of the universal system in which he has his manifestation to experience such things, but it can be done as it is inherent in all beings from atoms to molecules etc , etc .

                Like Seth talking about (or for actually) Seth2 who has never been physical nor a part of our manifest universal system + yet sustains it + has seeded it ,ie, the Seth we know . If Seth2 exists in a dimension in which thoughts + feelings + images as we know them do not exist (+ would be a hinderance if they did) , then to human cons' there seems to be no existence, but that is simply a lack of peception + knowledge of true/real reality , which exists in terms of intensities + not in terms of time or space or thought forms .

                Best wishes in your searching Jim , paul

 Hiya Deb ,
             I do + don't agree with you but i think you somewhat confuse designations here Deb.

             We are a part of ATI , we are not ATI , if we were then we would not be here now as we are. 
             I would agree that we are all ATI in the sense that we all have the potentialities of our maker but they are mostly just that , potentialities.
             i also  agree that we are all made up of the same stuff as ATI + that we are ATI in form + being , divine fragments indeed but only fragments , + not the whole .

             We did not bring creation into being from a non physical (no time or space) but divine + simultaneous subjective source , only ATI did this.
             We do not even know how our own human bodies are brought into existence + sustained nor how even our slightest thoughts come from the realm of the invisible into the visible (or unknown reality as Seth puts it) , it is all given to us.

             It can rightly be said that in a qualitative sense we are all the same as ATI + equal , as we are all made up of the same stuff or issue of ATI, but then so is an ant or puddle or flea.   
             Buttttt , in a quantitative sense , meaning the real or true knowledge + base/experience , we have yet to get to know our true inner selves/entities let alone a non phys' being such as Seth2 or going further , the pyramid gestalts , so on that level we are tiny little fragments indeed + in no way equal to ATI whatsoever.
       
             If ATI withheld His support , which He could , tho He would not , not one iota of reality would remain .
He sustains us , we do not sustain Him  .
             The only circumstance where ATI did or does in some way withdraw His support is when He created nonbeing + when He reabsorbes all of reality after a great cycle of manifestation , but this nonbeing exists only in relation to His created progeny + not to ATI Himself even tho He too slumbers .

             I understand how much Seth stressed that we have a part in all realities at all levels but this is merely intellectual supposition on our part until one has an OOB or expansive experience of some sort + then we think that yes maybe we have had an experience of the divinity within us but it is allways fleeting + always there is more to learn + exp'.

             Only ATI has all knowledge at all times (+ outside of time) .

             ATI does cyclically or periodically reabsorb all of His creation back into Himself + sleeps or rests.
             I really don't give 2 hoots about what anyone may think of such a reality + if ever i come across Seths remarks on the subject i'll let you know .

             This reabsorption , for the created beings ,  of whatever import , from their perspective is as if they are in a state or condition of nonbeing , not aware of themselves or of any thing . Perception has ceased . As Seth says , all of the probabilities/possibilities of cons' have been blocked or are in suspension . This is nonbeing , it is a realty , a divine fact + cannot therefore go out of reality or become nonexistent .

             Nonbeing is not nonexistence , it is existence that has been suspended , not able to express any prob' or poss' of its own cons' whatsoever . It is more than asleep as there is no perception no dreams , but it is Held in the bossom of ATI as the potentiality of the coming ''new'' creation .
             Nor does nonbeing mean the anhilation of individuality . As simlpy as can be put , nonbeing is a deep dreamless sleep in which there is no perception or memory of perception + yet one will awaken + remember who + what he is + where he is as an indiv' being .

              Only ATI can reawaken this dreaming faculty after nonbeing + bring all of creation back into the reality of divine fact . As ATI awakens so all other forms of cons' start to reawaken .        No other created being can do this , not even the pyramid gestalts .  Nonbeing is truly a sacred mystical state .

              There is only one reality of nonbeing , created by ATI to ''hold'' all of His dreams ,  all of the myriad forms of cons' that existed in Him as divine fact (meaning you + me etc)  , in ''suspension'' whilst He agonised in His searching for the means to be , or , actualisation , + indivdual freedom . Without the safety cushion of nonbeing + suspension ATI could not be free to persue His agonised + contracted yearning , as His own dream creations would have suffered intolerably + would  have faced an almost certain insanity .

              Because nonbeing is a reality of divine fact , it can be revisited by the little fishes that like to swim upstream + back to the source , so to spk .  These little fishes obviously come back with some pretty wierd stories to tell as i do with my void states of cons' , but there you go , thats what you get for sticking your neck waaay outside of time + space +  thought forms .   

              One of the rewards of entering into this state is that by + by , after having been reawoken , so to spk , one will come back into the universal system in which he has his phys' manifestation by way of ''a moment point'' in the creation of that univ' sys' , which means that one will be aware of the spontaneous present of all of the multitudinous systems which belong to that univ' sys' , be they of dreaming realities , phys' materialisations or of the gods or pyramid gestalts associated with that sys' , this includes all of the realities in which Seth has his reality + more .

              Again nonbeing IS NOT NONEXISTENCE , it is ''mediated'' by ATI , so that the indiv' beings , tho not aware of themselves and in a suspended + potential form ,  still yet exist in + as a part of ATI as divine fact .         
              This is the one + only reality of nonbeing , its quite magical really , the ultimate free lunch .
             

              I've seen Eben's you tube production of his nde , pretty cool for a neurosurgeon but simply a 1st step into the greater reality of the soul  .  But what a breakthru for the scientific community if only they would listen . One's 1st time is always a little bit confusing tho always felt as a huge breakthru , which it is for any indiv' . A bit like sex really .


              my best wishes little Bee , paul

Quote from: voidypaulIt can rightly be said that in a qualitative sense we are all the same as ATI + equal , as we are all made up of the same stuff or issue of ATI, but then so is an ant or puddle or flea. 

Yes, I understand what you're saying... We are a part of ATI. We are a part, not the whole, of ATI. Just as each cell in my body is a part of me, is me, but is not the ALL of me. As is above, so is below.  All of my cells are part of my greater whole, as I exist now in this body.  And yes, I don't know how my body came into this existence (aside from basic reproductive understanding, which only glosses over and ignores the finer details), but then neither does ATI as far as I've read.

But then my feeling is I cannot consciously withdraw support of even one cell in my body any more than ATI can withdraw support of us. And do the cells in my body sustain me, or do I sustain them? Or is it the old chicken and the egg debate? In this 3D physical existence, I suppose I can withdraw support of my whole being (such as in death) and in the process abandon each cell. But... are they truly abandoned? Because their energy and consciousness continue on, in a different form...

Quote from: voidypaulNonbeing is not nonexistence , it is existence that has been suspended , not able to express any prob' or poss' of its own cons' whatsoever . It is more than asleep as there is no perception no dreams , but it is Held in the bossom of ATI as the potentiality of the coming ''new'' creation .

Sorry to keep going back to Joe Dispenza, but I love the guy and for a mere mortal he has a lot of this figured out. Or at least, he's a deep thinker and tries to relate his own thoughts to the rest of us. His definition of Nonbeing is the quantum field of potentials/possibility. Sometimes when I contemplate it I simplify it to being the world of Lego parts. The building blocks are all there, neutral, pure potential. To be assembled or created into reality by conscious intent or desire.

A few days ago I was trying to explain to a VERY good, longtime friend how happy I am that we don't know 'it all.' Surprising to me (I don't know why I was surprised), she asked why. My answer was that my whole life, I felt/knew there was more to reality than what I'd been told and when anyone of authority (religion, science, medicine) says "these are the answers, it's definitive, we don't need to explore this any more," it makes me very suspicious . What I'd been told throughout my life has always seemed so final, boring and most of all LIMITED.

Quote from: voidypaul
He reabsorbes all of reality after a great cycle of manifestation

That feels to me like a natural cycle or recycling.

Quote from: voidypaul
             ATI does cyclically or periodically reabsorb all of His creation back into Himself + sleeps or rests.

As is above... la la la 

Quote from: voidypaul
            Again nonbeing IS NOT NONEXISTENCE ,

I see it as getting dismantled and dumped back into the big box of Legos. Not nonexistence but instead being broken down into the basic parts (consciousness units) to be reassembled into something new and exciting.

Quote from: voidypaul
But what a breakthru for the scientific community if only they would listen .

Yes, with Eben, as with anyone else who steps outside the Official Line of Consciousness, he's been subjected to the scrutiny of people who say he's a complete quack just looking to make a fast and easy buck.

Thanks for the heady thoughts and explanations. I have to say it was a "kick in the arse" to meet up with you in London (or thereabouts).

As an aside, I've been trying to be a bit more consistent in promoting this forum on Facebook. My goal is pretty easy on me at this point: just post once a week on FB a portion of a topic here, with a link back to this site.

Today I went wild and decided to pay FB to promote this topic: a whopping $5.00. I don't know what got into me, lol. Curiosity, I guess. Well, so far, not much of a reaction. The only comments were from some guy in Texas that included the words "antiChrist" and "complete bullshit" and someone else saying "this is completely messed up." Why is it only the Christians feel the need to comment? But, it was worth the $5 just for that!

BTW if anyone here is on FB and has not yet Liked our page, please do so! We just passed the 100 Likes mark, I'd love to reach the 150 mark at some point.

Quote from: voidypaulBut my reading of Seth is that ATI is both immanent + transcendent , or one would have it as the scientists do , that there is a creation out of nothing + this is not so.

Paul, if Seth said that ATI is transcendent (which I am pretty sure he did not), it knocks out much of his other teachings. For instance, creating your own reality. If there is a transcendent ATI, whenever you want to create something you have to kneel down and ask ATI to do it, or at least ask the permission of ATI. I cannot recall anything like this in the Seth writings.

In the second part of your sentence, you seem to be saying that if ATI is not transcendent, then it follows that we have to believe in creation out of nothing. I don't think that follows at all. My understanding of Seth is that consciousness has always existed, and physical reality arises out of consciousness. There is no need to postulate a transcendent ATI to account for creation.
Regards, Sena

Quote from: DebToday I went wild and decided to pay FB to promote this topic: a whopping $5.00. I don't know what got into me, lol. Curiosity, I guess. Well, so far, not much of a reaction. The only comments were from some guy in Texas that included the words "antiChrist" and "complete bullshit" and someone else saying "this is completely messed up." Why is it only the Christians feel the need to comment? But, it was worth the $5 just for that!

Deb, thanks for this. I have no hesitation in liking that page:
https://www.facebook.com/SethJaneRobertsForum/

I don't like some of the comments: "Than this being the Anti-Christ. What a crock of shit."

Quote from: SenaI don't like some of the comments: "Than this being the Anti-Christ. What a crock of shit."

Thanks Sena. Somehow I knew I could count on you.

Quote from: DebToday I went wild and decided to pay FB to promote this topic: a whopping $5.00. I don't know what got into me, lol. Curiosity, I guess. Well, so far, not much of a reaction. The only comments were from some guy in Texas that included the words "antiChrist" and "complete bullshit" and someone else saying "this is completely messed up." Why is it only the Christians feel the need to comment? But, it was worth the $5 just for that!

Go, Deb, Go! That was a good one. lol  And the answer to your question is...because you're rocking their boat...or beliefs. That's my guess anyway.

Hah, thanks Jim! I'm a real trouble maker. It's also probably why I get frisked at airport security so often.

I found this quote in Nature of Personal Reality, which I think supports my view that, according to Seth, All That Is is immanent and not transcendent:

"Seth, session 674: "Now: In those terms you are the power of God
manifested. You are not powerless. To the contrary. Through your being
the power of God is strengthened, for you are a portion of what He is.
You are not simply an insignificant, innocuous clump of clay through
which He decides to show Himself.

You are He manifesting as you. You are as legitimate as He is. If you
are a part of God then He is also a part of you, and in denying your
own worth you end up denying His as well.""

https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AngelsAndUs/conversations/topics/12697?scrumb=MIDmJwHLTnk

http://www.execonn.com/matt/Docs/SETH99.htm

http://tinyurl.com/not-a-clump-of-clay   (Google books)

Hi Deb,

       you said ; ''We are a part, not the whole, of ATI.''

       paul     ;   yes you have it clear here .  We are divine fragments with the potentiality of the whole but the full potential is kept hidden from us as we are only just learning the basics at the level we are on .
                      What do you mean by   '' but then neither does ATI as far as I've read.''  don't think I've got your drift on this one my busy little bee .

       Deb    ;   But then my feeling is I cannot consciously withdraw support of even one cell in my body any more than ATI can withdraw support of us. And do the cells in my body sustain me, or do I sustain them?

      paul    ;    You are right , you cannot cons' withdraw your support from even one cell as it is the inner self that does the creating on this level . The cells sustain us as a whole phys' unit but we also give to the cells the love + dreams of human cons' that they could not get otherwise in their journey into greater forms of being , like us . The atoms  are a part of energised cons' + so are independent in themselves. The non phys' self creates atoms out of the pure energy available to it but it was the cons' units that first dreamed up the atoms  which then dreamed up all of the myriad forms that were poss' or prob' . The atoms were once a part of the divine syntax , as Seth so eloquently says , the energy out of which all of the cons' dreams of ATI were brought into divine fact (b4 creation) .
                 Energised cons' is in some important respects  quite different to psychological cons'  + as Seth has said human charcteristics come not from humans but from this energy , that became manifest b4 humans or any other phy' forms . 

     Deb    ;   I suppose I can withdraw support of my whole being (such as in death) and in the process abandon each cell. But... are they truly abandoned? Because their energy and consciousness continue on, in a different form...

    paul    ;   its not that you withdraw support insomuch as you do not act as the organising principle that holds them together , + when you leave the phys' field , you set them free + adopt another form + they also adopt other forms . Nothing ever dies .

    Deb    ;   Joe Dispenza, His definition of Nonbeing is the quantum field of potentials/possibility
     
    paul   ;   i think he's close but grasping at straws here i'm afraid .
               if all of the prob' + poss' of cons' have been blocked/suspended then of course joe's assumptions are absolutely incomplete , at least as far as Seth + i are concerned . He is trying to make associations that cannot poss' be true to nonbeing .  It would more true to say that the quantum field of potentials/possibilities is a portion of the reality of the cons' units .

   Deb    ;   That feels to me like a natural cycle or recycling

   paul   ;   yes it is Deb , putting it as simply as can be .

   Deb    ;   I see it as getting dismantled and dumped back into the big box of Legos. Not nonexistence but instead being broken down into the basic parts (consciousness units) to be reassembled into something new and exciting.

   paul   ;   V v very close Deb , but nonbeing comes b4 the formation of the cu's . Even void or the unendurable mass , comes b4 the cu's , which were released + brought into existence via that 1st primal void.

   Deb  ;  "antiChrist" and "complete bullshit" and someone else saying "this is completely messed up."   

  paul   ;  Good luck to Eben , i like him .
            A soft kick i hope madam .
            Yep you get all the loopy loo's come out to play on FB.   Fundamentalists , christian or otherwise are of course deluded + should never be listened to but their opinions can be quite hilarious + easily ripped to shreds , as long as they dont know where you live .

           Oh yes , b4 i forget , here is a quote i found that illustrates the dependence of us created beings on the inexhaustable , infinite energy of ATI + most certainly not the other way around.

           The Seth Mat' chp' 18 pg 245

           '' .....  You not only draw upon this overall energy but you do so automatically since your existence IS DEPENDENT upon it . ''  my caps .   If one can poss' ovecome the egotistical flaws + to accept one's dependence , then one is released from the burden of creation in ways quite difficult to put into words . Its a little like the freedom you gained when you said  ''how happy I am that we don't know 'it all.' Surprising to me (I don't know why I was surprised)''

          peace , paul

Hi Sena ,
          you said ;  Paul, if Seth said that ATI is transcendent (which I am pretty sure he did not), it knocks out much of his other teachings. For instance, creating your own reality. If there is a transcendent ATI, whenever you want to create something you have to kneel down and ask ATI to do it, or at least ask the permission of ATI. I cannot recall anything like this in the Seth writings

  paul   ; 
            Seth also says that ATI is omnipotent + that we (all of creation) are dependent upon His Divine energy , see above quote .

             As i said in my last post Seth has also said that ATI is more than its parts (any + all of them) so what is this if not transcendence ?  If ATI is omnipotent , + more than the sum of its parts + that all being(s) are dependent upon Him , then again i ask you , what is this but ATI's transcendent nature ? How can He be all these things (or qualities) beyond any or all of creation + not be transcendent ?       
              So pray tell me Sena why would the reality of ATI's transcendence '' knock out much of his other teachings. For instance, creating your own reality. ?  He gave us all free will if you remember your Seth correctly .

            Why do you have to add ''whenever you want to create something you have to kneel down and ask ATI to do it, or at least ask the permission of ATI.'' ?   Seems nonsensical to me Sena . I get the feeling that the church did you a grave disservice in some way my friend but you dont have to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to spk .

Sena   ; 
           In the second part of your sentence, you seem to be saying that if ATI is not transcendent, then it follows that we have to believe in creation out of nothing. I don't think that follows at all. My understanding of Seth is that consciousness has always existed, and physical reality arises out of consciousness. There is no need to postulate a transcendent ATI to account for creation.

  paul   ;
            If ATI was existent b4 the creation (+ in fact had to go thru an agonised searching b4 He could bring about the creation) then again i say to you that He is transcendent . If ATI were not existent b4 the creation , then what else is there but nothing ?
            He is the cons' that dreamed all other cons' into divine fact b4 He even brought them into manifestation . We are a part of His creation but He is more than all of creation .
            You or i were not allways existent , ATI created us . When Seth says that cons' has always existed He means that the cons' of ATI has always existed + because we are a creation of ATI , in that sense it is true we have always existed but you must be careful to make the differnce between yourself + ATI because He created you + all things + you DID NOT .
            Tame the ego my friend + give credit where credit is due .

            I would suggest a thorough reading of Dreams Evo' etc ,     in particular the chapter 1 , Before the beginning .

           Also you later posted ''I found this quote in Nature of Personal Reality, which I think supports my view that, according to Seth, All That Is is immanent and not transcendent:''

           Yes i agree that this does show His immanent quality but you seem to forget that all of creation is only a portion of ATI + not the whole .

           Also in Ths Seth Mat' chp 18

                                       Seth        '' ... It (ATI) must release the creatures + probs' from Its dream . To do so would give them actuality . However , it also meant ''losing'' a portion of Its own cons' ,,,, etc .''

                          also,      ''To let them go was to loose that portion of Itself that had created them .''

                          +      ''ATI therefore , lost a portion of itself in that creative endeavour.''

              So Sena , can you not see that all of creation is only a portion of ATI + not the whole + that what ATI did not ''loose'' is that part that is forever transcendent . Or did the church mess you up so much that you cannot see what is before your very eyes ?



       peace , paul

Quote from: voidypaulThe Seth Mat' chp' 18 pg 245

           '' .....  You not only draw upon this overall energy but you do so automatically since your existence IS DEPENDENT upon it . ''  my caps .   If one can poss' ovecome the egotistical flaws + to accept one's dependence , then one is released from the burden of creation in ways quite difficult to put into words .

Paul, thanks for finding that quote from The Seth Material. I agree that entire passage is quite important. I think I can see roughly where you are at. I am at present not conscious of "the burden of creation", so I feel more comfortable with the idea of inter-dependence.

Yes, I was quite messed up by the church, and my antagonism towards theology may well be preventing me from seeing clearly.
Regards, Sena

Hi Sena ,
           how very magnanimous of you , i was afraid that i might have gone too far + offended you , my apologies if my post did seem a little harsh or insensitive .
           You have my compassionate sympathies for what you must have gone thru at the hands of some of the villainous clergy , i have heard so many horrendous stories of the abuses both mental + physical that some (far too many) have been put thru . My hope + wish is that you will heal completely + regain your inner equilibrium + freedom from the painful past inflicted upon you .
           I will put you in my meditation tonight + send some healing vibes . The true Christ loves you + is horrified at all of the inequeties done in His name + those that have perpetrated such madness will have their own karma to make up for one day .
           In the great immanenent aspect of ATI that you quite rightly spk of ' it is indeed true that we are all one , i am you + you are me , the hurt done to one is a hurt done to all + will be righted , the love + kindness given to one is a gift multiplied a thousandfold for all to share .

           i am sure that you do , but i must ask your forgiveness for my insensitiviy toward you , i must try harder to be kinder + more compassionate in my communications .

          yours contritely , paul

paul,
   just felt like chiming on. have been reading on the forum a bit lately.
and enjoyed reading alot of what you have posted.
I like this most recent post.
one thing I wonder about, though is your reference to karma.
I think Seth says its not true?

Hi Chasman ,

            nice to make your aquaintence + have your input on the forum .

            Seth mentions karma in the Seth Mat' , ch 11 on reinc' . I will quote ,

            ''Karma presents the opportunity for development . It enables the indiv' to enlarge understanding thru exp' , to fill in the gaps of ignorance , to do what should be done . Free will is always involved .''
             
            He also says that karma is NOT or does NOT involve punishment , as unfortunately has been distorted in most if not all of the eastern spirituality .

            There are many more instances of Seth talking about his own karma , ie , as being born as Frank Watts so that he could learn humility . Also other instances of when others came to Jane for advice on their present family or personal relationships . As you continue your reading of the mat' i'm sure you wil get it + tho i'm not sure how many times Seth actually mentioned the word karma ,  this is what he means when he is talking about reinc' relationships. Karma is also the return of indiv's to one another because of LOVE , it is not just to do with setting right the wrongs we have done . In the bigger picture it is all about Love + reinstating past loves or removing the obstacles to love we have put before us .

            Again it must be stressed that he says it is NOT a punishment but a free choice made by the reincarnating personality to put his own house in order , so to spk .              When Seth says that free will is always involved this does not mean that the indiv' can avoid doing what must be done , painful or not , karma is always resolved one way or another but that the indiv' will choose his time + place of reckoning so to spk.
           
           I hope this helps .

                                   regards , paul

Thrilled to make your acquaintance too. Thank you very much for your excellent reply Paul.
Will write more when I get to my computer.

ok, at my computer.
I have a couple things to say.
first, I am so grateful for your excellent reply.
I certainly knew about the not punishment part.
but, the rest I either did not know, or forgot.
I read Seth books alot, 20 or 30 years ago. I even corresponded with Yale, in hopes of getting more material from Jane and Rob's donated Seth material.
I got away from the Seth stuff for a couple decades, always meaning to re-read it.
3 or 4 years ago, I re-read NOPR. twice over the course of a year or 2.
also some other Seth stuff. and got a couple videos.....interview with Rob and such.
Paul, let me just say that I am so very happy to make your acquaintance. you know alot. wayyyyyyy more than I.
I'll close my post here with something I just read in the beginning of Sue Watkins Conversations with Seth Volume 2.
"the magic is you." (that may or may not be verbatim. probably is.)
I love that statement. it is Seth telling the people in the group at Jane and Rob's that we can go look for the magic in all kinds of things.........religion....politics......drugs......all kinds of things.........but the thing for us to realize is, is that the magic is me. (and for you, the magic is you.)
peace and joy and fun to all of us,
Charlie

Hi Charlie ,
             ''the magic is you'' , yep , love it , spot on , great quote for anyone to get their teeth into . There is nothing that exists outside of us that we have not had a hand in creating or recreating.
             One of my favourite Seth teachings is that the perciever helps recreate the percieved object or event + that both the perciever + that which is percieved both continually change each other. 
             Also that we each individually have or dwell within our own space/time continuum + that the beauty + elegance of telpathy holds all structures together from the greatest to the lowliest .
             I'd also like to thank Sena for the quotes on telepathy he recently posted that shows the infinite beauty of such apparently seperate systems that come together to create an absolutely astonishing whole.
             
             I would be most interested to know how you fared with Yale in accessing the Seth material as i understand that they have the whole body of the works donated to them by Rob + Jane + i would be interested in having a look into it myself some time .

            Oh , one thing that i did forget to mention in connection to karma is that Seth says that there is no transmigration of souls (which would come under the punishment misconception) which i am sure you are aware of but i thought i should mention it .

            Thank you kindly for the compliments but it is just Seth i am espousing so , nothing new from me there . My speciality is in what i have called the void states of cons' , which Seth has dealt with in some respects when he described the creation of the 1st planetary system that knew the race of man , the first ''object'' (the unendurable mass/no weight) + also in his concept of the ''undifferentiated'' areas or levels of cons' in which no thoughts or images exist + where cons' refines itself in terms of intensities + not in space + time .

            I am quite thankfully + happily steeped in Seth's teachings which i have been reading off + on for the past 35yrs + which i was introduced to by a young (as i was then) American man whom i met in a Chinese Dewist (spelling ?) centre in S Ealing , S london , close to where i live now .

            I was once able to attain the dual dreaming/wakeing cons' that Seth describes (tho i can't remember where) + i hope one day to be able to return to such an exalted state of cons' , tho it is difficult to attain + i hope i have not left it too long nor too late in my life to be able to achieve it again as it requires an intense concentration + several months of semi isolation to achieve , ohh lala .
             
          I am more than happy to answer any of your questions or listen to any of your own concepts or understandings , we live to love + love to live , good luck with all that you do my freind , + to all of you .

                peace , paul                         

peace to you too paul.
namaste, my friend.
thank you a super real lot for all you posted.
my correspondence with Yale was 25 years ago, I'm guessing. (I think I kept the letters, I'll have to look sometime.)
they were very nice. I also would like to go there someday. at the time, I was reading absolutely every Seth book I could get my hands on.
I am very extra interested in all you wrote.
one of my hobbies is learning about astrophysics. so, I love hearing stuff about spacetime.
I have learned so much at the astronomyforums.net astrophysics sub-forum.
all the stuff you said about voids and such sounds utterly fascinating.
"Chinese Dewist (spelling?)"     do you mean Taoist?
I was introduced to the Seth stuff in around 1975, by a psychologist/Unitarian Universalist minister.
I was born and raised Catholic. thought about being a priest off and on until I was about 20. by which time I had been actively seeking for a few years. read the Seth stuff. believed it. and then as the years went by, grew skeptical, and became agnostic. but always wanting to, and meaning to re-read the Seth stuff. 3 or 4 years ago, I re-read NOPR (twice). and since then, I believe the Seth stuff again.
and read it. (I have a lot of reading ahead of me.)
I am sooooo looking forward to talking to you more about Seth and voids.
Chas

"we live to love + love to live"       awesome, man. to the max. its soooooooo all about the love!!!!!!

hi Chas,
         + namaste to you too , such a pleasant greeting , v spiritual . I v much like some of the old Hindu philosophy as i have mentioned in the cyclic recreations + absorbtions of all universal manifestations (pralaya) + the concept that from an unmanifest/immaterial/nondual ''begining'' , Parabrahman/ATI 1st dreamed all other consciousnesses into existence or being , as Divine Fact , even b4 He set them free into manifestation + actualisation ..

         Seth also mentions cryptically about ATI's Own Divine Conception +  wether or not it was (from) an initial contraction or expansion  (+ that this is pretty much unknowable from any point within any of the created sys's anyway).  And i'd say that the hindu mysticism is agreeable here too . It is the unknowable or utterly transcendent aspect of ATI .
         The Buddhists as far as i know only say it is nirvana (beyond the jhanas) + therefore beyond the most refined perception that we can achieve even spiritually , + call it ''cessation'', but there are some Buddhists that also use the term nonbeing which is also Sethian + posit an ATI or some other creative source .
         
         Yes i do mean taoist , thank you .  i like their nonbeing/nonduality too (Wu chi) , + as Seth has said , these things have been known b4 + lost etc, etc .

         Seth on void is unfortunately quite scant in the material , in fact the only time i have come across it is in the mat' on the creation of the 1st planetary system where he is also quite cryptic about refering to an initial or primary/primal void state from which  all other void states arise , which i believe to be the unendurable mass/ no weight that Seth mentions in dreams/evolution etc (i think in the 2nd chp'), which ATI brings into existence b4 He releases the cons's  from the probable suspension (within His dreams) , +  b4 the creation of space + time , + of course , this was all happening simultaneously .   
         It is my belief , because of Seths cryptic descriptions + because of my own exp', that all universal systems + cons' individuals come into manifestation initially by way of a void state + indeed that there was (+ is still existent) a primal void state , that state which is on the cusp of the moment point at which ATI continually comes into objective existence from His Divine/eternal/infinite subjectivity, (in my understanding).

                     Buttttt it must be made clear that when spk'g scientifically , the terms void + vacuum are reversed , ie , vacuum to Seth is that state that is not (yet) existent but to science the vacuum state is a quantum state of the lowest poss energy (the zero point field) but which is constantly disturbed by ''invisible'' quantum fluctuations of virtual particle pairs + all of this takes place within what they call the scalar field in which all field theory takes place or occurs (like their newly found higgs field) + which has the properties of false vacuum + true vacuum.
                     This false vacuum is poss' more like Seths void state + in some ways it is v similar to my own dynamic void state . Yet the true vacuum in scientific terms would mean the anihilation of the univ' as we know it but in Seth's + my philosophy could be the (pure)void state b4 the introduction of the poss' + prob' endowed it by the unmanifest cons' or cons' units .
                     In cosmological terms , void is the emptyness between galaxies + yet there is the mysterious bootes void which is just mind bogglingly huge . I've also heard of the great attractor + the newly discovered dark flow in which thousands (many) of galaxies are being pulled or attracted to another mysterious point in the universe , perhaps an extremely super massive black hole or even the prescence of an adjacent other (parallel) univ'
                     All of this is quite fascinating but then again they blow it all by the exclusion of cons' from their equations . 
                     This is all v simplified + i am happy to be corrected on any misunderstanding i have made .

                     Anyway i think i am rambling + am certainly getting long winded so i will wrap it up here for the time being + see if there is any interest to add , detract or criticize it .

                      peace , paul

hey paul,
   wow, man!!
thank you for all of that.
absolutely fascinating and awesome.
I super enjoyed reading all you wrote.
there is so much that I do not know.
not much about eastern religions. I mean, a little m but not a lot.
I will just kind of ramble here for a minute. I hope you don't mind.
I love stuff that I read in Watkins Conversations Vol. 2 today.
Seth is telling the people that the divine-ness that they seek, is within themselves. not in another person, group, religion, drug.
if any other person (or spirit, eg, Seth) or group tells you that they are the sole authority, that they alone have the truth, and you must follow them, run away.
you are your own authority. you are your own god.
please understand that Seth words it most eloquently. what I wrote here merely hints at how excellent what he said is.
as for vacuum energy in current cosmological thinking, it is Dark Energy. which makes up roughly 70% of the physical universe. the rest being about 25% Dark Matter, and 5% regular familiar, what's called baryonic matter. (I think its called baryonic matter, in honor of Barry Manilow.....oops, ok, not really, just trying to make you laugh, now. lol)
ok, keeping this kinda short, as I'm not really thinking of much else to say at this second.
thank you again for all you wrote.
peace to you too, my friend,
Charlie

Hi All,

I've always found Seth's comments about Jesus, the Christ entity, and the Second Coming, to be very interesting and somewhat inconsistent with some of his other teachings having to do with the nature of reality, simultaneous time and probable realities.

As part of Seth's overall philosophy, he talks a great deal about the nature of reality, simultaneous time and probable realities. In the Early session books and in the Seth Material, he talks about the "York Beach" couple for example. This is a couple that Rob and Jane, physically saw while in York Beach Maine. This couple was a probable Rob and Jane.

Seth also talks about a probable Rob, a man by the name of Dr. Pietra. Dr. Pietra did some experiments in his reality in an attempt to bridge across the realities in order to make contact with some other reality. Seth told Rob that if conditions work out, it was possible that they, Rob and Dr. Pietra, could meet each other.

In one of the Early session books, Seth talks about there being a probable reality where Napolean Bonaparte conquered all of Europe and that this reality still exists for example. Seth also mentions in one of his books that the dinosaurs still exist, for example.

Given this then, I've come to believe that there must have been all kinds of realities that have to do with Jesus. Some where he was never even born. Some where he lived the life exactly as described in the Gospel of Matthew. Some where he was crucified but did not die, left and lived a life in France as some psychics and channels say. Some where he went to India as spoken of in some Indian traditions. Some where he lived the life exactly was Seth mentioned in Seth Speaks, and finally many other realities as well. Furthermore, if I understand Seth correctly then all of these realities do exist and are every bit as valid as any of the other realities.

This leads me to wonder why Seth told Jane and Rob the very specific Jesus story that he did in Seth Speaks (Jesus was not crucified, there was a plot where he was kidnapped, and another person was crucified instead, Jesus was a great physic and made the wounds appear on his body,....). Isn't this just one of many probable realities having to do with the life of Jesus that did occur in some reality?

Along these same line, why would he have told Jane and Rob about the specific probable reality where the second coming occurs and all is done as Seth says by the year 2075. Isn't this also one of the many probable realities having to do with the second coming that will occur in some reality (or that already exists in the Spacious Present)?

I'm new here and have read most of Seth's books and many of Jane's as well. I have  been a "Sethie" since 1979 when I was totally blown away by "Seth Speaks".  I'm excited about joining this forum, because, probably like many of you, there aren't many people in my extended family that I can have this type of discussion with.

I'm very interested in hearing what others in this forum think, in regards to my 2 questions above.   

also a newbie.
posting to just say welcome.
very tired.
long day, must sleep.

Quote from: jbsethSome where he went to India as spoken of in some Indian traditions.

jbseth, welcome to the forum. We also need to consider the "probability" that Christ was a reincarnation of Krishna.

http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/jesus/krishna.html

Paul,
    just wanted to mention about the word Tao.
its pronounced like its starts with a D.
I don't know why.
just thought you might be interested.