Did Seth teach pantheism?

Started by Sena, October 16, 2021, 10:29:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sena

November 21, 2021, 05:49:39 AM #50 Last Edit: November 21, 2021, 05:58:38 AM by Sena
Quote from: barrie on November 19, 2021, 10:46:33 PMSeth Continues: This was indeed in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.

Barrie Responds: The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize...and there were so many growing probabilities that they needed to be physicalized. So, far, I see NOTHING about selfishness. The dilemma has NOTHING to do with wanting to experiment with a selfish universe.

Seth Continues: Now had he not solved it, All That Is in ways that cannot be understood, would have faced insanity, and there would have been literally a reality without reason, and a universe run wild."

Barrie Responds: Seth is saying that if all of these nonphysical probabilities were not physicalized, then ATI would have gone crazy. To use an analogy, when the chick is ready to be born, he cracks the shell or goes nuts trapped in it.

Barrie and Caleb,

Thanks to Caleb for initiating this interesting discussion. The problem is that Seth was not very clear about what the "primary cosmic dilemma" of All That Is was.

Barrie, to my knowledge Seth did not actually say that "The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize".

As Seth is not very clear, I would like to turn to William James. I have not read James's book "A Pluralistic Universe", but there is a useful summary here:

https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/756

What I understand is that according to James there are two kinds of pantheism, the monistic variety and the pluralistic variety. The primary cosmic dilemma may have been the choice between the two kinds of pantheism.

Barrie, I take your point that every consciousness has always existed, but All That Is may have had a choice between every consciousness developing independently, or every consciousness developing according to a uniform "monistic" model.

A quote from the article (see attached pdf):

QuoteIn this book, in many ways James argues against absolute monism and explains his
promotion of Pluralism
, very well orchestrating the rhythm of partes destruens and pars
construens in his discourse. His strategy is to make his audience more and more
convinced about the insufficiency of idealism, as to give them concrete consistency of
the pluralistic alternative. He starts to notice that the idealistic Weltanschauung cannot
fully satisfy our need of feeling at home in the world, and it is this necessary to justify
James's attempt to support and encourage other possible choices. In fact, although
empiricism and rationalism have – in a pantheistic sense – a spiritualistic vision in
common, there is a fundamental discordance between these two philosophical and
temperamental portraits.

Sena

Quote from: barrie on November 20, 2021, 07:29:43 PMSeth (ESP Class, 2-12-74): "Your SELFISH desires are good. They are the desires of a self, born out of the glory of All That Is, and therefore those desires are good."
Barrie, thanks for finding this quote in praise of selfish desires.

Caleb Murdock

Sena, there is definitely a kind of selfishness which is good, and in the quotes posted by Barrie, I think Seth was giving us those.  But the word "selfishness" also applies to criminals and rapists and such.  Good people will tend to be selfish in a productive way.  Bad people will not.  Now, I understand that Seth explained that good and bad are inaccurate concepts, but you have to admit that someone who considers only his own needs is not being selfish in a good way.  It all depends on how much awareness you have of the results of your actions.

Perhaps I am saying this because I watch a lot of true-crime TV shows, and it is horrifying the things that people do, just horrifying.  (Mostly men doing them, I might add.)

Sena

Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 21, 2021, 02:06:34 PMSena, there is definitely a kind of selfishness which is good, and in the quotes posted by Barrie, I think Seth was giving us those.  But the word "selfishness" also applies to criminals and rapists and such. 
Caleb. I don't  think we are in position to judge All That Is. We can only imagine how All That Is considered the pros and cons of Monism versus Pluralism. If She had opted for Monism there would have been no evil on Earth, no Hitler. With Monism, all consciousnesses would have been uniformly dull. I can imagine people saying, like our children, "I am bored."

Caleb Murdock

Quote from: Sena on November 21, 2021, 07:41:20 PMCaleb. I don't  think we are in position to judge All That Is. We can only imagine how All That Is considered the pros and cons of Monism versus Pluralism. If She had opted for Monism there would have been no evil on Earth, no Hitler. With Monism, all consciousnesses would have been uniformly dull. I can imagine people saying, like our children, "I am bored."
I'm not sure how I may have judged God, but I certainly think we are free to do so if we want to.

I'm just not familiar enough with monism and pluralism to be able to comment.  But didn't Seth say that ATI, and thus everything in existence, is composed of the same element?  That element is alive, however, which makes all the different.

This is an area where my memory of the Material is a little weak.  Isn't ATI composed of CUs?  Or is it EEUs?  I need to read up on that.

Sena

November 22, 2021, 02:26:50 AM #55 Last Edit: November 22, 2021, 02:30:48 AM by Sena
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 22, 2021, 01:20:28 AMIsn't ATI composed of CUs?  Or is it EEUs?  I need to read up on that.
Well, if All That Is is literally "all that is", then everything is included, and that seems to be how Seth sees it:

"These CU's can operate as separate entities, as identities, or they can flow together in a vast, harmonious wave of activity, as a force. Period. Actually, units of consciousness operate in both ways all of the time. No identity, once "formed," is ever annihilated, for its existence is indelibly a part of "the entire wave of consciousness to which it belongs."

(Pause at 9:04, one of many.) Each "particleized" unit, however, rides the continual thrust set up by fields of consciousness, in which wave and particle both belong. Each particleized unit of consciousness contains within it inherently the knowledge of all other such particles—for at other levels, again, the units are operating as waves. Basically the units move faster than light,2 slowing down, in your terms, to form matter. (Pause.) These units can be considered, again, as entities or as forces, and they can operate as either. Metaphysically, they can be thought of as the point at which All That Is acts to form [your] world—the immediate contact of a never-ending creative inspiration, coming into mental focus, the metamorphosis of certainly divine origin that brings the physical world into existence from the greater reality of divine fact. Scientifically, again, the units can be thought of as building blocks of matter."

—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 889, December 17, 1979

Pantheism means God is in everything, so God is in CUs as well as in EEs, but it may not be correct to say that God is "composed" of CUs.

Caleb Murdock

Thank you for that information, Sena.  How do CUs related to EEUs?

ATI, the universe and our world must be "composed" of something.  I thought it was one of the energy types that Seth described.

From what I have read so far on this forum, CUs are not what I thought they were.

Sena

Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 22, 2021, 02:53:37 AMFrom what I have read so far on this forum, CUs are not what I thought they were.
It is incorrect to describe CUs as "particles" because CUs are pre=physical. As for EE units, I'll need to go back to the books.

Caleb Murdock

A particle doesn't necessarily mean physical; it just means that the energy that composes the universe comes in individual units, instead of, say, a wave, as in quantum mechanics.

Shall I start a new thread?  I was intending to start one on CUs and EEUs.
Like Like x 2 View List

Deb

Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 22, 2021, 03:44:38 AMShall I start a new thread?  I was intending to start one on CUs and EEUs.

I say go for it! I could use a review on CUs and EEs, and it would also be an opportunity for me to examine what energy is.


Tob

November 23, 2021, 02:03:13 AM #60 Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 02:07:43 AM by Tob
Tom Campbell is extensively operating with the concept of individuated units of consciousness. I think ´ICU´s in his terminology. It would be worth reading his materials as he is familiar with the Seth material as well. I had a private session with Bashar, asking about the ´CU´s of Seth, the ´death of atoms` (a concept Robert Butts did regret not to have clarified further, and ´coordinate points´.

According to Bashar, Seth´s CUs are just smaller units composing each and everything (smaller than subatomic particles). According to him, everything is created by one single unit, the Prime Radiant, which is travelling ´at infinite speed´and thus everywhere at the same time. Where it is ´criss-crossing´- itself it does form matter. The more often this criss-crossing occurs, the denser the matter which is created at this point. There are universes which are much denser than ours (Bashar).

According to Tom Campbell, reality is virtual. There is nothing smaller than one Planck lenght. Reality (what we perceive as reality) is constantly being recreated at the rate of Planck time. (Planck time is the time it takes light to pass one Planck lenght. If you imagine one Planck lenght the size of one millimeter, a real millimeter would be larger than the visible universe). According to Tom Campbell the universe is pixelated at the level of Planck-lenght and re-created at the rate of Planck time.

According to the Kris Chronicles the universe is pixelated. And the pixels are the CUs.


barrie

Quote from: Tob on November 23, 2021, 02:03:13 AMAccording to

According to Barrie: Is the universe a computer simulation, any type of simulation and/or hologram? I say no. Is mind control involved—in which alien beings instill in us the images that we then see? I, again, say no.

As Seth and Seth2 have explained, and I agree, CONSCIOUSNESS is behind the creation of physical reality in the "first" place even tho there is NO "FIRST" PLACE because all of this happens outside of linear time.

All objects and all of physical reality naturally fluctuate, flicker or blink in and out of physical reality each instant all the time because THAT is part of the process of reality creation and conjuring up objects for out five senses to see, use and navigate with on the physical plane.

It is true, that like a computer program or hologram, physical reality is a reality of appearances which flicker. This means that things appear to be one way based on our five senses, but they are also something else; AND there ARE more expansive explanations of these things existing within the nonphysical realm—and not with some vast computer on some alien's galaxy desk.

As an analogy; a table appears solid to the five senses via classic science, but according to quantum science it is not solid at all—and it is not even a table. BOTH ARE TRUE—and there is NO CONTRADICTION—and one is NOT truer than the other.

This is a perfect description of the nature of our physical reality. It is two things at once—physical and non-physical—and there is no contradiction—and one is NOT truer than the other. And no grand computer need apply. It's just that the right questions concerning consciousness and its quantum connections have just rarely been asked.

Each instant on a personal, individual level consciousness is ALSO the MECHANISM of reality creation—via telepathic agreement.

This means that IN EACH MOMENT--ALL OF US literally create everything around us: the objects and bodies we see, the landscapes, etc--EVERYTHING—all via telepathic agreement.
AND this MECHANISM of conjuring up reality each instant produces a flickering or blinking effect as each object flickers in and out of physical reality as we conjure it up so QUICKLY that our five senses don't notice.

THIS WOULD ALSO HOLD TRUE WITH EVERY UFO SIGHTING, ENCOUNTER, ABDUCTION, AND SO FORTH. And in this process of conscious reality creation, NO objects are actually ever solid and they are NEVER always there--BUT RATHER they continuously flicker or blink on & off—each instant--as we create them, CONJURE THEM UP AND BACK DOWN again, to speak, OUT of physical reality—and then back in—over and over for eternity.

And if TRUE, THEN this MEANS that the universe is NOT a computer simulation or a holograph—but a NATURAL FLICKERING LIVING and ONGOING adventure.

So, humans conjure up all the objects in physical reality in this flickering manner that some people you speak to may notice. Objects may always be flicking "in and out" of reality so quickly each instant—that most never notice—for to the five senses the objects appear to always be here.

But some may be able to see this flickering...and it may have nothing at all to do with holographic projections or computer simulations—but with the natural method of reality creation. BUT the APPEARANCE of observing this flickering would be identical to what you define and identify as holographic projections and computer simulations.  So, the question would be: What is causing the flickering?

The flicker or fluctuation IS a physical occurrence that happens so quickly most people cannot ever see it—and to our five senses to always appears that everything is always solidly here. But sometimes, people can notice the flicker or blinking. This may occur in some altered state or even under some drugs like LSD.

And, so, even when alien beings appear to witnesses, it also may be in cooperation and/or collaboration with these creatures on telepathic and subconscious levels—that do not involve mind control at all. AND these bodies would also fluctuate or flicker as the witnesses create them for their five senses to see and deal with.

And when some people DO see this natural flickering or blinking, their PERSONAL proud-state-of-the-art-high-tech-cutting-edge-cyber-sci-fi-high-strangeness BELIEFS--DICTATE to them that this flickering must be some alien or majestic colossal computer simulation, program, or holographic universe. And THAT explains why they keep seeing Keanu Reeves cartwheeling in the corner of their eyes as they fall asleep.

But it IS the filter of their and our beliefs that dictate to each one of us how we define, explain and/or categorize the reality we see. Thus, to the current-minded technological steeped society of today, these folks come to the conclusion that all this blinking and flickering must be a hologram or computer simulation which also blinks and flickers.

Yet, I contend that this is actually just the natural fluctuation, flicker and/or blink of consciousness creating reality. And what seems to be a computer simulation is what the actual process of reality creation looks look like.

The universe is NOT a computer simulation.  But rather, it is a CONSCIOUSNESS STIMULATION which is what reality is—and it blinks and flickers in and out physical reality each instant that normally, the five senses never notice.  It is not a hologram. It is our HOME.




Like Like x 3 View List

barrie

Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 22, 2021, 01:20:28 AMIsn't ATI composed of CUs?  Or is it EEUs?  I need to read up on that.
Hi Everone, I would say that All That Is CREATES CUs and EEUs...and is not involved with physical reality on the level of CUs and EEUs.

barrie

Quote from: Sena on November 21, 2021, 06:09:51 AMBarrie, thanks for finding this quote in praise of selfish desires.

Sena, You're welcome.

barrie

Quote from: Sena on November 21, 2021, 05:49:39 AMBarrie, to my knowledge Seth did not actually say that "The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize".

Hi Sena, Here is what Seth said and what I paraphrased as "The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize..." (Bold & CAPS added for emphasis only):

Seth (Session 427): "All That Is did exist, itself, obviously in a state of being, but in a state in which it could not find expression for its own being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this "period" in quotes, of contracted yearning, that All That Is could concentrate its energy sufficiently enough to create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it."

Barrie Comments: So, ATI wanted to "create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it."

Seth Continues: "...At first, in your terms, all of probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within consciousness of All That Is. Later the unspecified nature of these "dreams," in quotes, grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became recognizable one from the other, until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is. And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more and more attention to his own dreams."

Barrie Comments: So, these "nebulous dreams" are nonphysical...physical reality was not yet created...but ATI kept paying more and more attention to his own dreams.

Seth Continues: "He then purposely gave these more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not as yet created from himself. He gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be ACTUAL, so there was this final breaking-through that was still necessary.

Barrie Comments: I mean Seth says outright that ATI "gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be ACTUAL..."

To me, if these individuals where in DREAMS and they "yearned to be ACTUAL" – it means that they yearned to be PHYSICAL...as opposed to remaining in nebulous dreams.

Seth Continues: Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means.

Barrie Comments: So ATI "loved" all these dream beings who had "consciousness" before the "beginning" or before physical reality was created. These conscious beings greatly wanted to be "released into actuality" or to be MADE PHYSICAL. And ATI, with "unspeakable sympathy"—wanted to help them become physical.

Seth Continues: "In his massive imagination, he understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth."

Barrie Comments: Again, clearly, "actuality" -- being made PHYSICAL or being PHYSICALIZED as opposed to remaining in detailed dream state--was needed for these dream consciousness beings "to be given birth."

Seth Continues: "He saw then an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means.

Barrie Comments: To me, this is very clear: These probable, conscious beings were "locked within" detailed ATI dreams—and so ATI had to find a "means" to PHYSICALIZE them or make them PHYSICAL—give them ACTUALITY as opposed to remaining NONPHYSICAL in detailed dreams.

Seth Continues: "THIS WAS INDEED IN YOUR TERMS A PRIMARY COSMIC DILEMMA (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.

Barrie Comments: I don't think Seth could be more clear—the "COSMIC DILEMMA" was to PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE...give them actuality or have them remain in the dream state.

Seth Continues: "...The pressure, in one way, came from two sources; from the conscious (underlined) but still probable individual selves who found themselves alive in a God's dream, and from the God who yearned to release them."

Barrie Comments: Again, I see total clarity: "Probable individual selves... alive in a God's dream," and "God who yearned to release them..." From where and to where? Release them from God's dream into actualization or physical reality—or, in other words, PHYSICALIZE them.

Seth Continues: This then is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt. He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed. The means then came to him. He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream.

Barrie Comments: Again THIS is the COSMIC DILEMMA: To PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE and remain NONPHYSICAL. The answer: PHYSICALIZE – "He MUST release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream."

Seth Continues: "To do so would give them actuality."

Barrie Comments: Again, clearly, to "release the creatures...from his dream" means to PHYSICALIZE them, make the PHYSICAL, or, in other words, "give them actuality" – as opposed to remaining in the dream state.

Seth Continues: However it also meant "losing", in quotes, a portion of his own consciousness, for it was within that portion that they were held in bondage. All That Is had to let go. While he thought of these individuals as his creations, he held them as part of himself and refused their actuality.

Barrie Comments: Here's more details of the COSMIC DILEMMA: IF he PHYSICALIZED them...they would be free or no longer "held in bondage" in his dream. BUT while in his dream, they were still totally a "part of himself" and so...what to do? "Refuse" to PHYSICALIZE them and keep them NONPHYSICAL in his dream—or release them from this "bondage" and make them physical or PHYSICALIZE them?

Seth Continues: To let them go was to lose that portion of himself that had created them. Already he could scarcely keep up with the myriad probabilities that began to emerge from each separate consciousness. With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free. The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation.

Barrie Comments: The COSMIC DILEMMA has been resolved: "With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free."

So, I do believe that my statement, "The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize..." – TOTALLY CORRECT altho those two terms were not used.

I have learned that paraphrasing is an excellent learning method—to see for yourself that you understand something. We often do this conversation. We may say, "So let me get this straight, you WANT me to ask you for lunch?" – when the person didn't actually use those words.



LarryH

Quote from: barrie on November 23, 2021, 07:07:00 AMSeth Continues: To let them go was to lose that portion of himself that had created them.
This and similar statements sounds to me that Seth is saying that we are not part of All That Is.

Quote from: barrie on November 23, 2021, 07:07:00 AMBarrie Comments: Again, clearly, to "release the creatures...from his dream" means to PHYSICALIZE them, make the PHYSICAL, or, in other words, "give them actuality"
This says that in order for us to have independence from his dream, we have to be physical. But physicality is not the only reality in which we have that independence, given that Seth says that there are numerous types of reality that consciousness can play in. The after-death or "between lives" reality presumably allows independent consciousness to have actuality. In my mind, actuality does not equal physicality.

Now, Barrie, to address your various comments regarding the holographic model and comments about flickering, I see no contradiction. Michael Talbot, author of The Holographic Universe, was a Seth reader, and in fact had a chapter about Seth in his previous book. The holographic universe theory does not require that the universe be a computer simulation, which seems to be your impression. Also, I agree completely with Tob's quote below of Campbell except for the misleading use of the word "virtual". Given that there are multiple types of reality, all are equally real. For instance, Seth says that dream reality is as real as waking reality. If physical reality is "virtual", then all realities are virtual. That can make sense if one considers the core reality as being consciousness and that consciousness choosing from among the many realities available in which to play. One reason that I agree with Campbell is that I came to exactly the same realizations years ago from reading Seth. The winking on and off of physical reality is far too fast (at Planck time) to be perceived. The flickering that you speak of must have different explanations.

Quote from: Tob on November 23, 2021, 02:03:13 AMAccording to Tom Campbell, reality is virtual. There is nothing smaller than one Planck length. Reality (what we perceive as reality) is constantly being recreated at the rate of Planck time. (Planck time is the time it takes light to pass one Planck length. If you imagine one Planck length the size of one millimeter, a real millimeter would be larger than the visible universe). According to Tom Campbell the universe is pixelated at the level of Planck-length and re-created at the rate of Planck time.

According to the Kris Chronicles the universe is pixelated. And the pixels are the CUs.


Caleb Murdock

November 23, 2021, 12:25:34 PM #66 Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 06:18:22 PM by Caleb Murdock
Barrie, I'm sorry to be coming at you with another criticism, but posting Seth's actual words and then reposting what he said in YOUR words is not helpful.  Seth wasn't speaking a foreign language that has to be interpreted.  In fact, one of the wonderful things about the Material is that Seth spoke it clearly in excellent English, unlike, say, Edgar Cayce.  It would seem that Seth's clarity is due largely in part of Jane Roberts, whose mind was very analytical.

MY interpretation of Seth's statements that you quote above is NOT that he sought to make his dreams PHYSICAL, but that he sought to ACTUALIZE his dreams.  Actualizing doesn't necessarily mean physicalizing.  My impression from the Material is that a majority of universes within the multiverse are probably nonphysical.

One of the difficulties in pinning down this point is that physicality exists on a scale of intensity.  Thus, our waking body is more physical than our astral body, which is why the astral body can move through objects (or so I've heard), but the astral body is nonetheless physical too, though at a lower "pitch".

But my main message to you is that the constant reinterpreting of Seth's words isn't needed.  Let us decide for ourselves what he is saying.

Caleb Murdock

November 23, 2021, 12:51:41 PM #67 Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 01:33:45 PM by Caleb Murdock
Now, I'm going to pick up with my own ideas.

As Barrie quoted above, Seth said:  "To let them go was to lose that portion of himself that had created them. Already he could scarcely keep up with the myriad probabilities that began to emerge from each separate consciousness. With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free. The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation."

You'll notice that Seth used the word "creation".  What I believe is that Seth, in these passages, is giving us a more accurate version of the Christian creation.  The Christians imagine that God simply willed the physical universe into existence, and that the resulting universe became independent of God.  Seth's story is more nuanced.  What happened in the creation as Seth describes it is that ATI found a way to externalize his dreams so that they became self-actualizing and, essentially, independent and "free" of ATI's control.  ATI gave his dreams self-determination, but ATI remains intricately entwined with them.  God's psychic energy (and therefore consciousness) permeates all of existence, which is why Seth insisted that everything is part of ATI.  Somehow, ATI remains the center, or the nexus, or the psychic engine of the universe.  What changed during the creation was our relationship to God.  God gave us our freedom during the creation.

Here is my blog article on the subject, if anyone is interested:

https://sethnotes.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-evil.html

strangerthings

November 23, 2021, 05:14:19 PM #68 Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 05:45:19 PM by strangerthings
virtual reality and simulated universe are words that are used and I stay far away from anyone saying that we are holograms or pixels or virtual for the same reasons people steer clear of religious dogma.

CONSCIOUSNESS is and it is VERY REAL.

I am a soul, a soul in flesh, and I AM able to create with my consciousness.

If it helps people to understand things by using the words, virtual or holographic, my opinion at this time is that you will lose a very important aspect to creating reality and that is that YOU HAVE consciousness for creation. My faith is not virtual faith, nor is it a holographic pixel.

My KNOWING I am a multidimensional being, is NOT virtual, nor is it some hologram.

This for me is NOT open for debate and I suppose anyone here could write an frikkin essay on "how I am wrong" but I will not read it or give it an ounce of my focus.

When I dream, I can work on things. When I enter another dimension and experience it, this is not a dream to me, but another mansion in my inner reality.

Physical reality is a TRAINING as we are baby gods in TRAINING. We will live out all of the "classes" we selected and until we do that we are not done.

For me, for example, an illusion that another can give me my joy and that my expectations of this person will be met so that I am happy, IS AN ILLUSION. For in REALITY I am responsible for my own joy and if I expect another to live up to my idea of this illusion then not only will I fall hard and possibly blame them for this that or the other, it makes me a victim and that is still an illusion, and it also makes me a slave master. REALITY is, that I create my reality. REALity.

I create reality from inner reality and here in my training reality it appears to me. It shows me all the things I believe. I meet it face to face.

I have inherited parental properties from my Entity. I AM an extension expanding and growing. I chose to be in this training school for a reason. It certainly wasnt to discover that I am virtual or made of holographic stuff.

I AM MADE OF INNER REALITY WHICH IS VERY REAL. All happening orgasmically again and again and again.




I AM A BABY GOD IN TRAINING

I AM is admitting I AM and I can be THIS THAT OR THE OTHER I AM BE BEING

Already happened! I create what I desire by already KNOWING I HAVE IT.

The definitions of "virtual" do not give me this gift!!!! Besides I already HAVE this gift of the gods! I am here to learn how to use it wisely and lovingly! And until I get that I will be here coming back as another life again and again. RE ALL!

I AM IT

I am the one I have been waiting for ALL OF MY LIFE! and there is no thing virtual or holographic about that!



Essential Meaning of virtual
1: very close to being something without actually being it
The country is ruled by a virtual dictator. [=by someone who is not officially a dictator but who is like a dictator in every important way]
Her victory is a virtual certainty. [=she almost certainly will win]
The species is nearing virtual extinction. [=it is almost extinct]
2: existing or occurring on computers or on the Internet
a virtual library
virtual shopping
The Web site provides a virtual tour of the stadium.
Full Definition of virtual
1: being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted
a virtual dictator
2: being on or simulated on a computer or computer network
print or virtual books
a virtual keyboard
: such as
a: occurring or existing primarily online
virtual shopping
b: of, relating to, or existing within a virtual reality
a virtual tour
3: of, relating to, or using virtual memory
4: of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence
virtual photons 



You CREATE with your consciousness the illusion that you are not a god of your world until you step into that role AND ARE THE GOD OF YOUR UNIVERSE. A LIVING GOD.

It is an illusion that you CREATE. There is NOTHIING virtual about taking your power back and knowing you are a multi dimensional BEING.

We merely forgot because we are in TRAINING.

(I hypothetically need to use the bathroom now, so if I am virtual then I can pee virtually and not actually. The soul in flesh. Lets see if that works! lol)

strangerthings

November 23, 2021, 05:38:40 PM #69 Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 05:41:24 PM by strangerthings
I often will quote Seth and others and type here my own words. I have a freedom of expression. I express my understanding in a myriad of ways.

I did not realize that we have to speak or type a certain way just to please another. If the feedback I get stresses me out, I have an opportunity to see why that is or not.

We are on this forum to discuss many things. Not everyone will agree that is a given. How we express what we think we know or understand is our RIGHT and misinterpretations can be had. That also is a given.

Text offers us a limited way of expressing as it misses the excitement of our body language, our tone, and are twinkles in the eyes! What I said in the above post could be read from many different angles.

For me, it was written with a passion and an understanding FOR ME that I create my reality using my consciousness that I already have.

I am not angry not by a long shot lol nor was my post expressed in that way. I am confident about what I believe and I have faith in my own self and expression that it might via others beliefs about their own "laws" of communication, appear that I am. I am not! I also feel it is important enough to express what I say how I say it because it is important to me.

You want to believe in a virtual reality go for it! You want to believe in a holographic world go for it you are very free to do that.

I am expressing how I view my life. My beliefs. My creative power and what I have been taught via inner reality.

Everyone adds to the database of humanity and we will grow in ways we can not fathom perhaps, from such beliefs others have.

But I am a real soul in flesh. I am not almost there... I AM ALREADY THERE.

xoxoxoxoxoxo


Caleb Murdock

My understanding of the Seth Material is that our existence is somewhat similar to a holodeck -- although Seth didn't say it like that; I don't think the concept of holodecks existed in the 1960's.  When explaining the Material to people (which doesn't happen often, if ever), I do use a holodeck as a model.  My understanding of the Material is that the pattern for reality is agreed upon by our inner selves, and then projected into space (space which is specifically created for the purpose), and then made solid by CUs or EEUs (which one I'm not sure).  I have always thought that the concept of holodecks arose because it is based on reality.

If Seth is to be believed, we live in a universe of energy.  Matter is, to an extent, an illusion.  In fact, human scientists have already figured that out.  Atoms are composed of electrons, protons and neutrons, which are units of energy.  Science has also established that matter is 99% empty space.  Atoms are held together by electromagnetism, which pretty much means that electromagnetism is the binder of the universe; it's what holds everything together.

The nature of energy being what it is, it seems to me that there has to be some very complicated science to turn it into the hard materials that we live with.  Clearly, at some level this is a universe of science.  I'm not saying that God himself devised atoms; but somebody certainly did.  Somebody devised this arrangement.  Consciousness is indeed the most real thing in the universe, but if consciousness wants to live among hard objects, an arrangement like this seems to be necessary.

LarryH

It would seem that some people think that "holographic" means "virtual" or somehow not real. That is not the case.

Caleb Murdock

November 23, 2021, 08:03:36 PM #72 Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 08:51:19 PM by Caleb Murdock
Quote from: LarryH on November 23, 2021, 07:39:29 PMIt would seem that some people think that "holographic" means "virtual" or somehow not real. That is not the case.
Well, in our human world it does.  Maybe, since we all believe in Seth on this forum, we shouldn't use the term.  But from what Seth said, it seems that our reality is a spiritual or mental projection.  Furthermore, our inner selves understand this (and are actively involved in doing it), but our outer selves aren't privy to the secret.  This sounds very similar to what humans do when they enter holographic environments in the physical world  -- part of them knows it isn't real.  Yes, for us, life is very real; but this entire physical universe seems to be designed for our spiritual growth, so maybe it isn't as real as we think.

Sena

November 23, 2021, 11:25:51 PM #73 Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 11:36:55 PM by Sena
Quote from: barrie on November 23, 2021, 07:07:00 AMBarrie Comments: To me, this is very clear: These probable, conscious beings were "locked within" detailed ATI dreams—and so ATI had to find a "means" to PHYSICALIZE them or make them PHYSICAL—give them ACTUALITY as opposed to remaining NONPHYSICAL in detailed dreams.

Seth Continues: "THIS WAS INDEED IN YOUR TERMS A PRIMARY COSMIC DILEMMA (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.

Barrie Comments: I don't think Seth could be more clear—the "COSMIC DILEMMA" was to PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE...give them actuality or have them remain in the dream state.

Seth Continues: "...The pressure, in one way, came from two sources; from the conscious (underlined) but still probable individual selves who found themselves alive in a God's dream, and from the God who yearned to release them."

I am sorry, Barrie, but I am not able to agree with you. Perhaps you are at a disadvantage in not having the Kindle edition of the book. Dividing up Seth's paragraphs into sentences does not really help. The following is the relevant section in a single paragraph:

"Within All That Is, then, the wish, desire and expectation of creativity existed before all other actuality. Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time, as you understand it. So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past, in which these events occurred. The strength and vitality of these desires and expectations, in your terms then, became so insupportable that All That Is was driven to find the means to produce them. Now when I say there was a state of nonbeing, and yet speak of All That Was, existing simultaneously in that state, I mean (pause), that All That Is did exist, itself, obviously in a state of being, but in a state in which it could not find expression for its own being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this "period" in quotes, of contracted yearning, that All That Is could concentrate its energy sufficiently enough to create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it. The agony itself and the stupendous desire to create represented its proof of its own reality. The feelings in other words were adequate proof to All That Is that it was. (Pause.) At first, in your terms, all of probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within consciousness of All That Is. Later the unspecified nature of these "dreams," in quotes, grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became recognizable one from the other, until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is. And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more and more attention to his own dreams. He then purposely gave these more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not as yet created from himself. He gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be actual, so there was this final breaking-through that was still necessary. Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means. In his massive imagination, he understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth. He saw then an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means. This was indeed in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 9 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/bCxwT3U

As you can see, this paragraph shows Seth's thought process leading up to the key phrase "primary cosmic dilemma". In that paragraph there is not a single mention of physical, non-physical, or physicalize.

QuoteSo, I do believe that my statement, "The Cosmic Dilemma was to physicalize or not physicalize..." – TOTALLY CORRECT altho those two terms were not used.

I am sorry, but I cannot see that.

Sena

November 23, 2021, 11:43:20 PM #74 Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 11:48:48 PM by Sena
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 23, 2021, 12:51:41 PMYou'll notice that Seth used the word "creation".  What I believe is that Seth, in these passages, is giving us a more accurate version of the Christian creation.  The Christians imagine that God simply willed the physical universe into existence, and that the resulting universe became independent of God.  Seth's story is more nuanced.  What happened in the creation as Seth describes it is that ATI found a way to externalize his dreams so that they became self-actualizing and, essentially, independent and "free" of ATI's control.  ATI gave his dreams self-determination, but ATI remains intricately entwined with them.  God's psychic energy (and therefore consciousness) permeates all of existence, which is why Seth insisted that everything is part of ATI.  Somehow, ATI remains the center, or the nexus, or the psychic engine of the universe.  What changed during the creation was our relationship to God.  God gave us our freedom during the creation.

Caleb, that is a useful paraphrase of the Seth account.

QuoteHere is my blog article on the subject, if anyone is interested:

https://sethnotes.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-evil.html

It is interesting that Perry writes of a "pantheistic universe":

QuoteSeth said we are all connected through God.  We live in a pantheistic universe, meaning that the universe exists within God.  The living energy that forms God also forms the universe, and God's consciousness flows with this energy, permeating everything (including us).  Since the universe is formed from the life energy of God, and since God is not evil, nothing in the universe can be evil, including those seemingly evil people among us.

Sena

Quote from: strangerthings on November 23, 2021, 05:14:19 PM(I hypothetically need to use the bathroom now, so if I am virtual then I can pee virtually and not actually. The soul in flesh. Lets see if that works! lol)

St, I agree that virtual peeing is not satisfactory.

Sena

November 23, 2021, 11:57:24 PM #76 Last Edit: November 24, 2021, 12:02:10 AM by Sena
Quote from: LarryH on November 23, 2021, 07:39:29 PMIt would seem that some people think that "holographic" means "virtual" or somehow not real. That is not the case.
Larry, I have read Michael Talbot's book. My understanding is that the holographic universe is a metaphorical description.

QuoteShortly after this leap of insight, Bohm came across holograms and these proved to be the culminating metaphor he was looking for. In the same way that the ink drop existed in its dispersed state, the interference patterns recorded on film appeared disordered to the naked eye. Both possess orders that are hidden or enfolded from view. Well, the more he thought about this, the more he realized that the universe employed holographic principles?it was itself one giant hologram.

https://www.infoplease.com/math-science/space/universe/theories-of-the-universe-the-holographic-universe

barrie

November 24, 2021, 12:07:56 AM #77 Last Edit: November 24, 2021, 12:13:00 AM by barrie
Quote from: Sena on November 23, 2021, 11:25:51 PMAs you can see, this paragraph shows Seth's thought process leading up to the key phrase "primary cosmic dilemma". In that paragraph there is not a single mention of physical, non-physical, or physicalize.

Sena, What leads up to the Cosmic Dilemma is NOT the Cosmic Dilemma. It's what leads up to it.

This is what Seth directly says the Cosmic Dilemma is. In HIS words, not mine:

Seth: "This then IS the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt. He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed. The means then came to him. He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream."

Barrie Comments: This then means...

Seth: "This then IS the dilemma...He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream. To do so would give them actuality."

Barrie Comments: So, Seth directly says that the COSMIC DILEMMA...IS to "release the creatures and probabilities" from God's "dream" and "give them actuality."

What do you believe this means?

What do you believe "give them actuality" means in regard to releasing them from the dream state?

To release from the dream state and give them actuality MEANS to make them physical...to make them actual...as opposed to remaining in the dream state.

What else do you think it means?

How else do you or can you explain how this DOES NOT MEAN--to free them from the dream state and make them physical? 

By the way, I have ALL the Seth books in digital form.


Caleb Murdock

Quote from: Sena on November 23, 2021, 11:43:20 PMIt is interesting that Perry writes of a "pantheistic universe":
Just to make sure you understand, Perry and I are the same person.  I used my middle name for the blog because, at the time I started it, I had a conservative landlord and didn't want to be evicted from my apartment.  My current landlord is also conservative, so I decided to keep the name.

You know, I'm pretty sure that Seth used the word "pantheism" in the Material.

Caleb Murdock

Barrie, physical reality is not the only actuality in the universe.  Our universe within ATI is a physical universe, but I think it's likely that a majority of universes within ATI are not physical.  What was developing in God's mind up to the Primary Cosmic Dilemma probably involved many universes, not just THIS physical universe.  Remember, Seth said that the number of universes and/or planes of existence within ATI are pretty much infinite.  All That Is is much greater in size and complexity than we can ever imagine.
Like Like x 1 View List

barrie

November 24, 2021, 01:05:53 AM #80 Last Edit: November 24, 2021, 01:36:14 AM by barrie
Quote from: Sena on November 23, 2021, 11:25:51 PMI am sorry, Barrie, but I am not able to agree with you. Perhaps you are at a disadvantage in not having the Kindle edition of the book. Dividing up Seth's paragraphs into sentences does not really help. The following is the relevant section in a single paragraph:

Sena, I hope you realize that you basically repeated the EXACT excerpt that I discussed in detail. 

And how else can Seth readers discuss in detail what Seth said other than break long excerpts up into specific sections in order to discuss them? How is that not helpful?

THAT SAID, perhaps you don't realize that in Early Sessions 9 -- Session 427 was NOT one long paragraph. THIS is how the pertinent section appears in the book, broken up into many paragraphs.

And IF it WAS one long paragraph, it would it would be appropriate to break it up up into smaller pieces in order to discuss in detail...

Following is how Session 427 appears in ES9 and what I excerpted from to discuss what the COSMIC DILEMMA was:

SESSION 427 AUGUST 7, 1968 9:00 PM WEDNESDAY

(The evening was again very hot and humid and Jane had been bothered by such conditions all day; but she wanted to hold the session as usual Shortly before nine she reported glimmerings from Seth.

(Her pace as Seth was slower than Mondays, but still a good one. Pauses and eyes open, etc.)

Good evening.

("Good evening, Seth. ")

Now. Desire, wish and expectation rule all actions, and are the basis for all realities.

Within All That Is, then, the wish, desire and expectation of creativity existed before all other actuality. Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time, as you understand it.

So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past, in which these events occurred. The strength and vitality of these desires and expectations, in your terms then, became so insupportable that All That Is was driven to find the means to produce them.

Now when I say there was a state of nonbeing, and yet speak of All That Was, existing simultaneously in that state, I mean (pause), that All That Is did exist, itself, obviously in a state of being, but in a state in which it could not find expression for its own being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this "period" in quotes, of contracted yearning, that All That Is could concentrate its energy sufficiently enough to create the reali¬ties that existed in probable suspension within it.

The agony itself and the stupendous desire to create represented its proof of its own reality. The feelings in other words were adequate proof to All That Is that it was. (Pause.)

At first, in your terms, all of probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within consciousness of All That Is. Later the unspecified nature of these "dreams," in quotes, grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became rec¬ognizable one from the other, until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is. And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more and more attention to his own dreams.

He then purposely gave these more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not as yet created from himself. He gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be actual, so there was this final breaking-through that was still necessary.

Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means.

In his massive imagination, he understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth. He saw then an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means.

This was indeed in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.

Now had he not solved it, All That Is in ways that cannot be understood, would have faced insanity, and there would have been literally a reality without reason, and a universe run wild.

The pressure, in one way, came from two sources; from the conscious (underlined) but still probable individual selves who found themselves alive in a Gods dream, and from the God who yearned to release them. On the other hand you could say that the pressure existed simply on the part of the God, since the creation existed within his dream. But in these terms such tremendous power resides in such primary pyramid gestalts that even their dreams are endowed with vitality and reality. (Pause.)

This then is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt. He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed. The means then came to him. He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream.

To do so would give them actuality. However it also meant "losing", in quotes, a portion of his own consciousness, for it was within that portion that they were held in bondage. All That Is had to let go. While he thought of these individuals as his creations, he held them as part of himself and refused their actuality.

To let them go was to lose that portion of himself that had created them. Already he could scarcely keep up with the myriad probabilities that began to emerge from each separate consciousness. With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free. The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation.

You may take your break.

(9:43- Jane had again been in a deep trance but emerged in short order. Her pace had been relatively fast. She resumed at 9:55.)

All That Is therefore "lost," in quotes, a portion (underlined) of itself in that creative endeavor. Yet all individuals remember their source, and now dream of All That Is, as All That Is once dreamed of them. And they yearn toward that immense source, and yet to set it free, to give it actuality through their own creations.

The motivating force is still All That Is, but the individuality is no illusion. Now in this same way do you give freedom to the personality fragments within your own dreams, and for the same reason. And you create for the same reason, and within all of you is the memory of that primal agony—that urge to create and free all probable consciousnesses into actuality.

(Longpause.) This session needs reading many times, for there are implications not at first obvious.


Tob

November 24, 2021, 01:48:09 AM #81 Last Edit: November 24, 2021, 03:18:44 AM by Tob
Quote from: LarryH on November 23, 2021, 07:39:29 PMIt would seem that some people think that "holographic" means "virtual" or somehow not real. That is not the case.

This is an interesting discussion. First of all, 'holographic' is not 'virtual'. Holographic means every bit of information is contained in every single piece (holograms of a bank card). Maybe one should also differentiate between the holographic principle and a full-fledged hologram (e.g. ABBA avatars on stage during a recent 'holographic' performance). 'Virtual' rather means 'not real', and has per se nothing to do with the term 'holographic'. Tom Campbell came forward with the term 'Virtual Reality' in his books. He is a physicist, but he was also the key experimentor at the Monroe Institute. To him everything is caused by consciousness, which is a remarkable position for a physicist. To him research results at CERN are only explainable if reality is 'not real' in the sense we think it is. According to him an electron is not 'a particle' with a negative charge. It is a 'point' with the characteristic of a negative charge. Only then, so Campbell, can the results at CERN be explained.

To us it does not really matter whether we are one single huge piece of flesh, composed of bones, blood, water and fat, prone to be killed in wars at Roman times, or a conglomerate of cellular structures, or invisible atoms, or subatomic particles, or waves, or strings, or basically 'nothing at all'. If we get the mundane information that our brain is using only 10 per cent of its capacity, this does not affect our daily life. In the same way, if we are informed that our body is composed of 60 per cent water this information does not diminish the quality of our life. And if you begin thinking of particles, composing the complicated cellular structures of your body, you get infomation that implies that exactly that solid body is de facto no solid unity. Far away. If you investigate invisible atoms you will find that they consist basically of nothing, there is just a lot of empty space, except some extremely tiny subatomic particles. If you investigate these subatomic particles you will get a similar result, leading to the hypothesis, that there is basically 'nothing' at all, except a few hypothetical constructs which you can never directly experience and investigate, eg. for sake of verification. You are only interpreting indirect data at CERN. The results of an 'event' (a clash of atoms). No one has ever seen a subatomic particle.

But this knowledge does not diminish the value of an individual. In the same way as it does not diminish the legal responsibility for its deeds as a single person, unable to blame the crimes on its disadvantagous genetic materials or the malfunctioning of hormones.

According to Seth everybody is creating his our her own camouflage universe. It is 'blinking' and 'does exist as often as it doesn't exist' (Seth). The cat Willie created a universe (created and re-created) where the bug on the wall was fatter and lived longer than the 'same' bug created by Jane Roberts. And the bug created and re-created by Robert Butts was of a different colour (Seth).

The 'capsule comprehension' is a clear circumscription of the holographic principle in the Seth material. The reality we think we perceive is only the far end of a long reality production mechanism which starts in F2, not in F1. And what we create in line with the vibrations of our belief systems is 'camouflage'. Seth is very clear on that. It may be possible to replace the concept of 'virtuality' by 'camouflage' but this does not change at all the issues that are at stake.

His main message is that there is a neutral reality production mechanism (early TES 3). And this mechanism is producing individualized camouflage universes in line with the individual belief systems. Moment for moment for moment. And these belief systems can be changed. This is the second part of his message. Everybody can improve his or her life. The description how was delivered in NoPR.

barrie

Quote from: Sena on November 23, 2021, 11:25:51 PM"Within All That Is, then, the wish, desire and expectation of creativity existed before all other actuality. Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time, as you understand it. So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past, in which these events occurred. The strength and vitality of these desires and expectations, in your terms then, became so insupportable that All That Is was driven to find the means to produce them. Now when I say there was a state of nonbeing, and yet speak of All That Was, existing simultaneously in that state, I mean (pause), that All That Is did exist, itself, obviously in a state of being, but in a state in which it could not find expression for its own being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this "period" in quotes, of contracted yearning, that All That Is could concentrate its energy sufficiently enough to create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it. The agony itself and the stupendous desire to create represented its proof of its own reality. The feelings in other words were adequate proof to All That Is that it was. (Pause.) At first, in your terms, all of probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within consciousness of All That Is. Later the unspecified nature of these "dreams," in quotes, grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became recognizable one from the other, until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is. And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more and more attention to his own dreams. He then purposely gave these more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not as yet created from himself. He gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be actual, so there was this final breaking-through that was still necessary. Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means. In his massive imagination, he understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth. He saw then an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means. This was indeed in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 9 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

Sena, I realize that I'm confused about your post...Do you think I just excerpted the bottom part of your paragraph that you put in bold or do you realize that I discussed in detail basically the whole paragraph?

I am repeating my breakdown and discussion of Session 427...to be sure you have seen the whole thing:

Seth (Session 427): "All That Is did exist, itself, obviously in a state of being, but in a state in which it could not find expression for its own being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this "period" in quotes, of contracted yearning, that All That Is could concentrate its energy sufficiently enough to create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it."

Barrie Comments: So, ATI wanted to "create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it."

Seth Continues: "...At first, in your terms, all of probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within consciousness of All That Is. Later the unspecified nature of these "dreams," in quotes, grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became recognizable one from the other, until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is. And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more and more attention to his own dreams."

Barrie Comments: So, these "nebulous dreams" are nonphysical...physical reality was not yet created...but ATI kept paying more and more attention to his own dreams.

Seth Continues: "He then purposely gave these more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not as yet created from himself. He gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be ACTUAL, so there was this final breaking-through that was still necessary.

Barrie Comments: I mean Seth says outright that ATI "gave consciousness and imagination to individuals while they still were but within his dreams. They also then yearned to be ACTUAL..."

To me, if these individuals where in DREAMS and they "yearned to be ACTUAL" – it means that they yearned to be PHYSICAL...as opposed to remaining in nebulous dreams.

Seth Continues: Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within himself for the means.

Barrie Comments: So ATI "loved" all these dream beings who had "consciousness" before the "beginning" or before physical reality was created. These conscious beings greatly wanted to be "released into actuality" or to be MADE PHYSICAL. And ATI, with "unspeakable sympathy"—wanted to help them become physical.

Seth Continues: "In his massive imagination, he understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was a necessity if these probabilities were to be given birth."

Barrie Comments: Again, clearly, "actuality" -- being made PHYSICAL or being PHYSICALIZED as opposed to remaining in detailed dream state--was needed for these dream consciousness beings "to be given birth."

Seth Continues: "He saw then an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within him unless he found the means.

Barrie Comments: To me, this is very clear: These probable, conscious beings were "locked within" detailed ATI dreams—and so ATI had to find a "means" to PHYSICALIZE them or make them PHYSICAL—give them ACTUALITY as opposed to remaining NONPHYSICAL in detailed dreams.

Seth Continues: "THIS WAS INDEED IN YOUR TERMS A PRIMARY COSMIC DILEMMA (pause), and one with which he wrestled, until All That He Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.

Barrie Comments: I don't think Seth could be more clear—the "COSMIC DILEMMA" was to PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE...give them actuality or have them remain in the dream state.

Seth Continues: "...The pressure, in one way, came from two sources; from the conscious (underlined) but still probable individual selves who found themselves alive in a God's dream, and from the God who yearned to release them."

Barrie Comments: Again, I see total clarity: "Probable individual selves... alive in a God's dream," and "God who yearned to release them..." From where and to where? Release them from God's dream into actualization or physical reality—or, in other words, PHYSICALIZE them.

Seth Continues: This then is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt. He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed. The means then came to him. He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream.

Barrie Comments: Again THIS is the COSMIC DILEMMA: To PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE and remain NONPHYSICAL. The answer: PHYSICALIZE – "He MUST release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream."

Seth Continues: "To do so would give them actuality."

Barrie Comments: Again, clearly, to "release the creatures...from his dream" means to PHYSICALIZE them, make the PHYSICAL, or, in other words, "give them actuality" – as opposed to remaining in the dream state.

Seth Continues: However it also meant "losing", in quotes, a portion of his own consciousness, for it was within that portion that they were held in bondage. All That Is had to let go. While he thought of these individuals as his creations, he held them as part of himself and refused their actuality.

Barrie Comments: Here's more details of the COSMIC DILEMMA: IF he PHYSICALIZED them...they would be free or no longer "held in bondage" in his dream. BUT while in his dream, they were still totally a "part of himself" and so...what to do? "Refuse" to PHYSICALIZE them and keep them NONPHYSICAL in his dream—or release them from this "bondage" and make them physical or PHYSICALIZE them?

Seth Continues: To let them go was to lose that portion of himself that had created them. Already he could scarcely keep up with the myriad probabilities that began to emerge from each separate consciousness. With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free. The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation.

Barrie Comments: The COSMIC DILEMMA has been resolved: "With love and longing, he let go that portion of himself, and they were free."



barrie

November 24, 2021, 03:18:03 AM #83 Last Edit: November 24, 2021, 03:48:12 AM by barrie
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 24, 2021, 12:18:37 AMBarrie, physical reality is not the only actuality in the universe.  Our universe within ATI is a physical universe, but I think it's likely that a majority of universes within ATI are not physical.  What was developing in God's mind up to the Primary Cosmic Dilemma probably involved many universes, not just THIS physical universe.  Remember, Seth said that the number of universes and/or planes of existence within ATI are pretty much infinite.  All That Is is much greater in size and complexity than we can ever imagine.

Caleb, To ground our discussion, this is what Seth said:

Seth (Session 427):: "This then IS the dilemma...He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream. To do so would give them actuality."
Seth also said (427): "Potential individuals in your terms therefore had consciousness before the beginning, or any beginning, as you know it."

Caleb Writes: Physical reality is not the only actuality in the universe.  Our universe within ATI is a physical universe, but I think it's likely that a majority of universes within ATI are not physical. 

Barrie Responds: So, we agree that included in the Cosmic Dilemma was to PHYSICALIZE the creatures and probabilities. You ADD that there may have also been other universes that are not physical. There ARE infinite numbers of nonphysical realities that are a part OF our physical system. So, PHYSICALIZATION cojld be said to include the whole shebang. In other words, physicalization IS the creation of F1.

In any case, the question is: How many nonphysical universes already existed BEFORE the actualization?  These nonphysical creatures and their probabilities had to be "somewhere nonphysical" in God's dream. So, there may have already been infinite numbers of nonphysical realities.

I do agree that there are infinite numbers of universes—some physical, some not physical, some with their version of what physical is.

The question is: What is actuality in regard to the cosmic dilemma? To create our physical universe or to create the infinite numbers of universes—INCLUDING our physical universe.

I believe that this dilemma involved the human race. They are the personalities and probability realities that are being referred to and being made physical as opposed to remaining in the nonphysical dream state. I believe that this is Seth's version of the Big Bang of the camouflage of our physical universe--which includes our connections to the infinite numbers of the nonphysical probable and dream realities.

Now, this dream state of God may already have infinite numbers of nonphysical universes in it—but none of them physical. In this case, it would be a physical universe or physical universes that were needed.

In any case, we agree that being physicalized was at least a part of the dilemma.

Caleb Continues: What was developing in God's mind up to the Primary Cosmic Dilemma probably involved many universes, not just THIS physical universe.

Barrie Responds: Probably or probably not. I say "probably not" because Seth easily COULD HAVE SAID "many universes" but he did not.

Seth (Session 427): "Now had he not solved it, All That Is in ways that cannot be understood, would have faced insanity, and there would have been literally a reality without reason, and A UNIVERSE run wild."

Barrie Comments: So, Seth did NOT say "...and UNIVERSES run wild."

Caleb Continues: Remember, Seth said that the number of universes and/or planes of existence within ATI are pretty much infinite.  All That Is is much greater in size and complexity than we can ever imagine.

Barrie Responds: I agree. But how does this fit in or not fit in with this Cosmic Dilemma...that is the question. How many nonphysical universes already existed?  These nonphysical creatures and their probabilities had to be "somewhere nonphysical" in God's dream. And this existed BEFORE actuality.

So, we get back to what is meant by actuality? And we are left with Seth saying "A UNIVERSE" and not "UNIVERSES."

I am going to further research the "agony" which was discussed in the previous Session 426--and also the possible the scope of ATI.

barrie

For those who like it short and sweet...my thoughts at this moment:

I believe that the Cosmic Dilemma concerned creating F1.

F2, F3 and whatever nonphysical realities already existed...but there was no F1...or did they. BUT there definitely was no F1.

All creatures and probabilities existed in God's dream. Was this F2 or F3 or F10 are all of them. In any case, there was no F1. I believe that F1 was needed in order to actualize, release and free what was in God's dream.

So, the agony and the Cosmic Dilemma involved the creation of F1...that did not yet exist. And of course, FROM F1 we still go into and blink in and out of F2, etc--which we never actually left.

So, the question is...did actuality create F1, F2, F3, F4 etc etc... or just F1 with the others already in existence?

God's dream existed--and this was a framework within which were the creatures and probabilities that needed more.

Caleb Murdock

I'm on my way to bed, but I'll say a couple things first.  The word "universe" can refer to the totality of existence, or it can refer to what I sometimes call a "sub-universe" within the "multiverse".  Our physical universe would be a sub-universe.  We can't be sure what Seth meant when he used the singular term "universe".

In any event, Seth's descriptions are so general that it is impossible to extrapolate any kinds of numbers or proportions insofar as physical vs. non-physical universes are concerned.  Such a discussion is pretty much useless.
Like Like x 1 View List

Sena

November 24, 2021, 09:27:51 PM #86 Last Edit: November 24, 2021, 09:52:46 PM by Sena
Quote from: barrie on November 24, 2021, 02:59:59 AMSena, I realize that I'm confused about your post...Do you think I just excerpted the bottom part of your paragraph that you put in bold or do you realize that I discussed in detail basically the whole paragraph?
Barrie, I am not questioning the fact that you have read the entire section with great care. It is our interpretation which is different.

QuoteSeth Continues: This then is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt. He creates reality, period. Now. He also recognized within each consciousness massive potential that existed. The means then came to him. He must release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream.

Barrie Comments: Again THIS is the COSMIC DILEMMA: To PHYSICALIZE or NOT PHYSICALIZE and remain NONPHYSICAL. The answer: PHYSICALIZE – "He MUST release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream."

This is where we differ. The dilemma of All That Is was whether or not to "release the creatures and the probabilities from his dream". How i understand this is that All That Is had to decide whether or not to allow independent existence to these creatures. Once they have independent existence, each creature can decide whether of not to choose physical exitence.

My understanding of the Seth teaching is that we all existed in the "spirit world" (? Framework 2) before we decided to opt for physical exitence. Some personalities may never decide to opt for physical existence. Did Seth Two ever have physical existence?

Sena

Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 24, 2021, 12:09:56 AMJust to make sure you understand, Perry and I are the same person.  I used my middle name for the blog because, at the time I started it, I had a conservative landlord and didn't want to be evicted from my apartment.  My current landlord is also conservative, so I decided to keep the name.

You know, I'm pretty sure that Seth used the word "pantheism" in the Material.
Caleb/Perry, that's very nice to know. Your blog is very informative.

Seth did not in fact use the word "pantheism":

https://findingseth.com/q/pantheism/

I assume that Seth avoided the word because of the negative connotations. At one time it could get you burnt at the stake by the Holy Catholic Church, as happened to Giordano Bruno.

Caleb Murdock

November 24, 2021, 10:33:46 PM #88 Last Edit: November 24, 2021, 11:05:45 PM by Caleb Murdock
Sena, so you are saying that Seth never used the word "pantheism"?  I find that strange because I clearly understood that Seth was describing a pantheistic universe.  But you know, Seth avoided a lot of words he didn't like.  Sometimes he said them just so he could state that he didn't like them.

But listen, the Seth material is pantheistic in its message.  One of the definitions of pantheism is that the universe exists within God, and that is what Seth was saying.  That is, in fact, what "All That Is" means.  So I don't understand why there is any question about it.

Now, "pantheism" means other things too.  I think that its original meaning was that God exists in nature.

Now, it's my belief that the reason Seth said that everything exists within God is because God's consciousness permeates all of existence.  I can see others disagreeing with that.  I mean, what does "within" mean, anyway?  "Within" usually references a relative position in physical reality, but most of the greater universe may not be physical at all.

Sena, you should call me Caleb.  Perry is my middle name.

LarryH

So this discussion is whether God is within everything or everything is within God? Maybe we can eliminate the word "within". Replace "God" with "All that Is", and we have "All that is" is everything. Kind of obvious. And we are not separate from All that Is. No portion of All that Is has been "lost".

Sometimes Rob would put a word in parentheses in a Seth quote to make a sentence more clear. When Seth said that All that Is had to "lose" a portion of itself, I suspect that this may have been one of those statements that needed more clarity, but maybe not obviously so. More than a missing word, I would interpret the statement as: All that Is had to cause a portion of Itself (us) to forget that it was a portion of Itself. My personal philosophy is that this illusion of separation is part of the species' challenge, to find our way back to ever greater awareness of our connection to the divine.
Like Like x 1 View List

Tob

November 25, 2021, 04:22:04 PM #90 Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 04:35:22 PM by Tob
"Seth uses the word "God" sparingly, usually when speaking to students who are used to thinking in theological terms. As a rule, he speaks of "All That Is" or "Primary Energy Gestalts."

"Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time as you understand it. So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past in which these events occurred".

"All That Is retains memory of that state, and it serves as a constant impetus—in your terms—toward renewed creativity. Each self, as a part of All That Is, therefore also retains memory of that state. It is for this reason that each minute consciousness is endowed with the impetus toward survival, change, development, and creativity. It is not enough that All That Is, as a primary consciousness gestalt, desires further being, but that each portion of It also carries this determination.

"Yet the agony itself was used as a means, and the agony itself served as an impetus, strong enough so that All That Is initiated within Itself the
means to be.

"If—and this is impossible—all portions but the most minute last 'unit' of All That Is were destroyed, All That Is would continue, for within the smallest portion is the innate knowledge of the whole. All That Is protects Itself, therefore, and all that It has and is and will create.

"When I speak of All That Is, you must understand my position within It. All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself.

"It is conceivable, then, that It has evolved, in your terms, so long ago that It has forgotten Its origin, that It has developed from still another Primary which has—again, in your terms—long since gone Its way. So there are answers that I cannot give you, for they are not known anywhere in the system in which we have our existence. We do know that within this system of our All That Is, creation continues and developments are never still. We can deduce that on still other layers of which we are unaware, the same is true."

Chapter 18 of 'The Seth Material': 'The God Concept' (excerpt)

--------------------------

The possibility to destroy everything but the last tiny piece and then recreate the whole again from the complete information which is contained in the last minute tiny piece of the former whole is the holographic principle as clear as it can be. (A full-fleged hologram is still something different, but it is based on said principle.

Robert Butts did provide a drawing of the pyramid gestalts of consciousness (plural: the gestalts ). Just to get an idea. In: "Jane Roberts: Dialogues...", page 32

This is just meant to facilitate the discussion about Seth's concept of "All-that-is" & Co.

I have no opinion on that.

Tob

November 25, 2021, 04:42:23 PM #91 Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 05:44:20 PM by Tob
Quote from: Tob on November 25, 2021, 04:22:04 PM"Seth uses the word "God" sparingly, usually when speaking to students who are used to thinking in theological terms. As a rule, he speaks of "All That Is" or "Primary Energy Gestalts."

"Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time as you understand it. So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past in which these events occurred".

"All That Is retains memory of that state, and it serves as a constant impetus—in your terms—toward renewed creativity. Each self, as a part of All That Is, therefore also retains memory of that state. It is for this reason that each minute consciousness is endowed with the impetus toward survival, change, development, and creativity. It is not enough that All That Is, as a primary consciousness gestalt, desires further being, but that each portion of It also carries this determination.

"Yet the agony itself was used as a means, and the agony itself served as an impetus, strong enough so that All That Is initiated within Itself the means to be.

"If—and this is impossible—all portions but the most minute last 'unit' of All That Is were destroyed, All That Is would continue, for within the smallest portion is the innate knowledge of the whole. All That Is protects Itself, therefore, and all that It has and is and will create.

"When I speak of All That Is, you must understand my position within It. All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself.

"It is conceivable, then, that It has evolved, in your terms, so long ago that It has forgotten Its origin, that It has developed from still another Primary which has—again, in your terms—long since gone Its way. So there are answers that I cannot give you, for they are not known anywhere in the system in which we have our existence. We do know that within this system of our All That Is, creation continues and developments are never still. We can deduce that on still other layers of which we are unaware, the same is true."

Chapter 18 of 'The Seth Material': 'The God Concept' (excerpt)

--------------------------

The possibility to destroy everything but the last tiny piece and then recreate the whole again from the complete information which is contained in the last minute tiny piece of the former whole is the holographic principle as clear as it can be. (A full-fledged hologram is still something different, but it is based on said principle).

Robert Butts did provide a drawing of the pyramid gestalts of consciousness (plural: the gestalts ). Just to get an idea. In: "Jane Roberts: Dialogues...", page 32

This is meant to facilitate the discussion about Seth's concept of "All-that-is" & Co. I have no opinion on that.

"Simply stated, this is one of the thumbnail passages that explain Seth's concept of God:

"He is not human in your terms, though he passed through human stages; and here the Buddhist myth comes closest to approximating reality. He is not one individual, but an energy gestalt.

"If you remember what I said about the way in which the universe expands, that it has nothing to do with space, then you may perhaps dimly perceive the existence of a psychic pyramid of interrelated, ever-expanding consciousness that creates, simultaneously and instantaneously, universes and individuals that are given—through the gifts of personal perspective—duration, psychic comprehension, intelligence, and eternal validity.

"This absolute, ever-expanding, instantaneous psychic gestalt, which you may call God if you prefer, is so secure in its existence that it can constantly break itself down and rebuild itself.

"Its energy is so unbelievable that it does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes, systems, and fields, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for it is each sparrow that falls."

As mentioned earlier, however, the Seth Material does not ignore deeper questions having to do with the "beginning" of consciousness and of reality.

(...)

"Your idea of space and time is determined by your neurological structure.

"The camouflage is so craftily executed and created by the inner self that you must, of necessity, focus your attention in the physical reality which has been created. The psychedelic drugs alter the neurological workings, and therefore can give some slight glimpses into other realities."

"These realities exist, of course, whether or not you perceive them. Actually 'time' exists as the pulses leap the nerve ends. You must then experience lapses, as this is not a simultaneous procedure. Past, present, and future appear highly convincing and logical when there must be a lapse between each perceived experience.

"There is no such lapse in many other personality structures."

(Ibid.)

Tob

November 26, 2021, 01:38:22 AM #92 Last Edit: November 26, 2021, 01:13:11 PM by Tob
"This absolute, ever-expanding, instantaneous psychic gestalt, which you may call God if you prefer, is so secure in its existence that it can constantly break itself down and rebuild itself.

"Its energy is so unbelievable that it does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes, systems, and fields, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for it is each sparrow that falls." (Seth)

---------------------------------------

It is necessary to understand that these concepts imply categories of infinity and are therefore extremely hard to approach. One should not start the next generation of the 'how many angels fit the tip of a needle'- discussion. Enough wars have been waged over that.

According to Bashar there is 'The ONE', unbroken and homogenous who does not know itself, and 'All-that-is', which is 'a part' of 'The ONE', the part that knows of itself as it knows of 'an other' after splitting, thus developing self-awareness and 'I'-identity. We are all self-aware 'I'- parts of 'All-that-is'. There is no hierarchy. We can experience ourselves as our 'I'-version of 'All-that-is', in the same way as everybody else can. The 'I'- identity will never be destroyed.

And as we are able to experience ourselves as 'I'- version of 'All-that-is' with our 'I'-identity, and everybody else is able to do exactly the same, there must be even a greater version of all 'I'-versions of 'All-that-is', integrating all existing 'I' versions of 'All-that-is', otherwise it would not be all that it can be. And we are then again able to experience ourselves as the 'I' version of that larger 'All-that-is', etc......and others as well, etc.

And this goes up and up and up to the level of 'the ONE' (Bashar). It never ends.

This may be not the most satisfactory explanation but it helps. A graphic overview has been attempted by Robert Butts. (Dialogues...p.32). Seth was at the same time satisfied and not satisfied with the way the pyramid gestalts of consciousness were approached by Robert's consciousness. The shapes in the drawing have been proposed by Seth as a suboptimal 'solution'.

Sena

November 26, 2021, 06:30:29 AM #93 Last Edit: November 26, 2021, 07:45:22 PM by Sena
Quote from: LarryH on November 25, 2021, 08:13:34 AMSo this discussion is whether God is within everything or everything is within God? Maybe we can eliminate the word "within". Replace "God" with "All that Is", and we have "All that is" is everything. Kind of obvious. And we are not separate from All that Is. No portion of All that Is has been "lost".
Larry, it is more complicated. We also have t consider panentheism.

[urlhttps://imgbb.com/][/url]

The third item in the diagram is panentheism. What it seems to be saying is that God is the universe, but also more than the universe. jbseth was keen on panentheism. I prefer the simple pantheism.


Sena

Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 24, 2021, 10:33:46 PMBut listen, the Seth material is pantheistic in its message.  One of the definitions of pantheism is that the universe exists within God, and that is what Seth was saying.  That is, in fact, what "All That Is" means.  So I don't understand why there is any question about it.

Caleb, I agree with you. You may also like to look at what I have written above to Larry on panentheism.

LarryH

Sena, I don't know how you can agree with Caleb in your last post while disagreeing with my quote in the previous post. They say almost the same thing. Seth's view fits one version of pantheism. Any finer look at the issue is like a discussion on, as Seth says, "how many angels fit the pin of a needle" (he meant a discussion of how many angels fit on the head of a pin)! A more interesting discussion would be, just what exactly is "the pin of a needle"?

Caleb Murdock

November 26, 2021, 01:49:32 PM #96 Last Edit: November 26, 2021, 01:51:04 PM by Caleb Murdock
I think that Seth would agree that diagram three is the most correct.  But diagram four may also be correct.  The problem is that neither diagram describes a perfect gestalt, in which the WHOLE has additional abilities that the PARTS don't have.  One of the problems with the diagrams is that they are physical representations of an essentially non-physical reality.  Whatever else we know, we know that the universe is made up of energy, since even our physical universe is composed of energy.  It may help to view God as the entity at the top of a vast pyramid of entities.  God is the entity who contains all entities within him/her/it, and he/she/it benefits from all of their capabilities.  (Maybe in the future I'll just go with "it".)

Who was JBSeth that you are referring to him or her in the past tense?  Is that someone who has died?


LarryH

Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 26, 2021, 01:49:32 PMWho was JBSeth that you are referring to him or her in the past tense?  Is that someone who has died?


jbseth was once a very active member who chose to leave a few months ago.

Deb

November 26, 2021, 03:15:11 PM #98 Last Edit: November 26, 2021, 05:56:45 PM by Deb
Ah! This topic has made a full circle back to the original question, "Did Seth teach pantheism?" I love when that happens. I don't have anything useful to contribute, not being interested in -isms at all, but it does appear that he did, without saying as much, at least according to some definitions. But I still don't see Seth as teaching a religion or doctrine. There's no separation, all that is, is one.

Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy: "[P]antheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe." If I were to make a chart, I'd just have a piece of paper with all that is everything that is written in the middle.  ;)

Quote from: LarryH on November 26, 2021, 11:12:00 AMas Seth says, "how many angels fit the pin of a needle" (he meant a discussion of how many angels fit on the head of a pin)! A more interesting discussion would be, just what exactly is "the pin of a needle"?

Now THAT is interesting to me. I know you have a knack for finding typos. Where did you see that Larry? I couldn't find it. I'm dying to check Mary's Rob transcripts/published book comparisons.


Sena

November 26, 2021, 06:45:51 PM #99 Last Edit: November 26, 2021, 06:51:51 PM by Sena
Quote from: Caleb Murdock on November 26, 2021, 01:49:32 PMWho was JBSeth that you are referring to him or her in the past tense?  Is that someone who has died?

Caleb, jbseth was a very active member. This is one of the threads he started:

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,2052.msg18286.html#msg18286