|
Post by zin on Jan 27, 2018 5:49:44 GMT -5
I am reading my nth book of Seth, and I can say that *many* of the subjects are what have always been most interesting ones for me. For example the one I read now (Dreams, 'Evolution', and Value Fulfillment) talks about formation of rocks, hills, etc.. These things seem to have some kind of awareness to me but at the same time I usually thought "isn't it difficult to stay motionless?".. Yes sounds nonsense but I can't help thinking so, especially while looking at trees. Seth makes some explanations which partially answer my questions.. One can think they are right or wrong but they do sound 'coming from another perspective' to me. He says that all of the elements that exist on earth got formed from fragments of entities left in trance (and the entities are consciousness units). He says: " Those entities are in trance, in those terms, but their potency is not diminished, and there is constant communication among them always. There is also constant communication between them and you at other levels than those you recognize, so that there is an unending interplay between each species and its environment." ... This communication is felt by many, right? I can say pic-taking is sometimes a 'trying to catch it'. Yeah, it seems A-H often go back to saying "be in alignment first". I'm not sure what Seth would say about such, but to me, this means one finds that place where one is not just filtering/labeling/noticing/experiencing/etc existence through the rutted filters of conditioned attention. There is much more space to notice that which is flowing as/in existence. This might be what Taoists pointed to as the life force or "chi" (not sure), but one's awareness of its subtlety and omnipresence in that relative state of alignment can be conducive to realization. What is motionless and empty overflowing into cognizable existence. I think your exploration of such material as more experiential than conceptual. It comes out in the photos you take in fun attempts to "catch it", which is great. What are your thoughts on the perspective that "entities are conscious units" and that they are in constant communication in "their unending interplay"? What questions remain that you would ask the entity Seth?-I don't think about the 'units', usually I am just curious about the formation of sense of self and I will write for this later. -My remaining questions are not for Seth : )
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 27, 2018 12:57:05 GMT -5
Yeah, it seems A-H often go back to saying "be in alignment first". I'm not sure what Seth would say about such, but to me, this means one finds that place where one is not just filtering/labeling/noticing/experiencing/etc existence through the rutted filters of conditioned attention. There is much more space to notice that which is flowing as/in existence. This might be what Taoists pointed to as the life force or "chi" (not sure), but one's awareness of its subtlety and omnipresence in that relative state of alignment can be conducive to realization. What is motionless and empty overflowing into cognizable existence. I think your exploration of such material as more experiential than conceptual. It comes out in the photos you take in fun attempts to "catch it", which is great. What are your thoughts on the perspective that "entities are conscious units" and that they are in constant communication in "their unending interplay"? What questions remain that you would ask the entity Seth?-I don't think about the 'units', usually I am just curious about the formation of sense of self and I will write for this later. -My remaining questions are not for Seth : ) Aah, yes, the lovely amalgamation! Such an amazing creation. Galatea de las Esferas, Salvador Dali (1952) Couldn't get video/audio to insert... here's link. Maybe you already know the story. www.seekeraftertruth.com/the-sufis-the-islanders/
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 27, 2018 19:08:09 GMT -5
Greetings. Just a quick reminder, that each time we label something, i.e.: 'awareness', we invoke someone else's beliefs about the label we've invoked.. especially the way words are used on this site, there is ample opportunity for misinterpretation/misunderstanding.. people's attachment to the idea of 'awareness', as presented here, is generally inconsistent with a still mind's awareness of what is happening.. fluid in the moment clarity shatters when intellectualizing about such notions as awareness, having discarded a relationship with the happening for the mind's ideas about that situation.. just a reminder... Be well.. True. But anyone can explore and find the difference, right now. And then awareness can deepen, become more subtle, but it never ~leaves behind~ what awareness-is-now (or should never leave behind. IOW, analogy, the second floor of a house can't be built without the first floor being built, and remaining). Greetings.. I visit occasionally, peek in, and see that nothing changes.. attachment to ideas about 'awareness' keep people from directly experiencing the fullness of awareness, the same way someone looking at a glass of water thinks they understand the ocean.. but, here the attachment to ideas about experience are so revered that the experience itself is set-aside in favor of the ideas about it, and.. after months/years away from this site, a return peek is like watching the same spokes on the bicycle wheel hitting the same baseball card and making the same noise.. so, it's off again to visit more experiences.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jan 30, 2018 21:09:46 GMT -5
-I don't think about the 'units', usually I am just curious about the formation of sense of self and I will write for this later. -My remaining questions are not for Seth : ) Aah, yes, the lovely amalgamation! Such an amazing creation. Galatea de las Esferas, Salvador Dali (1952) Couldn't get video/audio to insert... here's link. Maybe you already know the story. www.seekeraftertruth.com/the-sufis-the-islanders/With the 'lovely amalgamation' words did you mean that I was adding several teachings together? If so you are right! Will write on this later (and I will visit the Sufi link again). ps. Nice pic!
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 30, 2018 21:32:05 GMT -5
With the 'lovely amalgamation' words did you mean that I was adding several teachings together? If so you are right! Will write on this later (and I will visit the Sufi link again). ps. Nice pic! Well, yeah that too, but I was referring more specifically to the formation of self. Look forward to reading.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2018 1:12:20 GMT -5
Yes, that's it. I think so too. ND is usually a little lopsided. ND teachers tend to almost exclusively focus on the SR aspect of enlightenment. While A-H and Seth almost exclusively focus on the CC aspect of enlightenment. So both tell only half the story. It's rare that a teacher presents both sides of the coin. I would hope that anyone playing such a role were intent on bringing about a deeper, more abiding sense of Being at Oneness, and letting the rest take care of itself. But yeah, I imagine there are mostly lopsided takes on it. I reckon the difficulty mostly emerges from the fact that there is no idea about SR that can be taught per se. Yet, there is a practical and visceral love and wisdom which can emerge from that realization that might form a teaching or consistent set of pointers. The challenges seem mostly born of the conditioned filtering and thinking through which the teaching points. It's all good. In comparison to CC, SR is of a rather abstract nature and as such it is a lot easier to approach by the intellect. And so that's usually what's been talked about on forums. The problem is that this kind of talk attracts (and probably creates) a lot of 'mind-enlightened' people (as Andrew used to call it). So everyone is constantly calling everyone else out, hehe. Introducing the CC aspect of it gives those floaty talks (as Tenka calls it) a lot more grounding.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2018 1:39:10 GMT -5
Another term for ' being in alignment' is 'seeing the world thru the eyes of Source' and I think that's much clearer. It points to a vantage point where separation isn't the case anymore. What the Taoists refer to as chi (qi) is what A-H call Source Energy or Consciousness streaming. I think Seth is also referring to streams of consciousness somewhere. What both Seth and A-H are pointing to is this larger portion of Self that is the ground of our beingness. Seth calls it Inner Ego (or Inner Self) and A-H call it Inner Being. And both teachings have the same goal, to get you beyond this perceived separation that the ego perspective creates by blending the ego perspective with the Inner Self/ Inner Being perspective. As they point out, in reality, the lines between inner and outer are entirely arbitrary anyway and don't actually exist. They only exist for sake of convenience in order to create a very specific kind of experience, i.e. physical time-space-reality (the consensus trance). Now, Seth's focus is mostly on how this consensus trance works, while A-H focus is mostly on how to live with it. That's why Seth comes along as a bit too abstract and theoretical and A-H as a lot more practical. That distinguishes it much betterer and I'm in agreement. The rest of what you've written here also does well to summarize the approaches/focuses of the material. Thanks. How different are Seth/ A-H's personalities to those of the channels through which they speak? Curious... Guess I should just read more. My impression is that in Esther's case there's a much better blending of personalities than in Jane's case. For one, just look at the antics when both are channeling and compare. I also consider A-H to be much more clearer than Seth. Although Seth Two comes pretty close to Abraham. But Seth Two doesn't even make up 0.1% of the entire Seth material. So I'd say in Esther's case there's a lot less getting in the way. What comes to mind here is the case of Anandamayi Ma. I read a book years ago by someone who used to live with her and travel around with her. And very often Ma was giving talks where she would say rather unorthodox things or extremely funny stuff and it always looked as if she was surprised at the words that came out of her mouth, as if it wasn't her who said it.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 8, 2018 20:49:05 GMT -5
I would hope that anyone playing such a role were intent on bringing about a deeper, more abiding sense of Being at Oneness, and letting the rest take care of itself. But yeah, I imagine there are mostly lopsided takes on it. I reckon the difficulty mostly emerges from the fact that there is no idea about SR that can be taught per se. Yet, there is a practical and visceral love and wisdom which can emerge from that realization that might form a teaching or consistent set of pointers. The challenges seem mostly born of the conditioned filtering and thinking through which the teaching points. It's all good. In comparison to CC, SR is of a rather abstract nature and as such it is a lot easier to approach by the intellect. And so that's usually what's been talked about on forums. The problem is that this kind of talk attracts (and probably creates) a lot of 'mind-enlightened' people (as Andrew used to call it). So everyone is constantly calling everyone else out, hehe. Introducing the CC aspect of it gives those floaty talks (as Tenka calls it) a lot more grounding. Yeah, I see what you're saying, I think. But what do you mean by introducing the CC aspect as a means of giving grounding?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2018 6:02:26 GMT -5
I would hope that anyone playing such a role were intent on bringing about a deeper, more abiding sense of Being at Oneness, and letting the rest take care of itself. But yeah, I imagine there are mostly lopsided takes on it. I reckon the difficulty mostly emerges from the fact that there is no idea about SR that can be taught per se. Yet, there is a practical and visceral love and wisdom which can emerge from that realization that might form a teaching or consistent set of pointers. The challenges seem mostly born of the conditioned filtering and thinking through which the teaching points. It's all good. In comparison to CC, SR is of a rather abstract nature and as such it is a lot easier to approach by the intellect. And so that's usually what's been talked about on forums. The problem is that this kind of talk attracts (and probably creates) a lot of 'mind-enlightened' people (as Andrew used to call it). So everyone is constantly calling everyone else out, hehe. Introducing the CC aspect of it gives those floaty talks (as Tenka calls it) a lot more grounding.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2018 6:06:39 GMT -5
I would hope that anyone playing such a role were intent on bringing about a deeper, more abiding sense of Being at Oneness, and letting the rest take care of itself. But yeah, I imagine there are mostly lopsided takes on it. I reckon the difficulty mostly emerges from the fact that there is no idea about SR that can be taught per se. Yet, there is a practical and visceral love and wisdom which can emerge from that realization that might form a teaching or consistent set of pointers. The challenges seem mostly born of the conditioned filtering and thinking through which the teaching points. It's all good. In comparison to CC, SR is of a rather abstract nature and as such it is a lot easier to approach by the intellect. And so that's usually what's been talked about on forums. The problem is that this kind of talk attracts (and probably creates) a lot of 'mind-enlightened' people (as Andrew used to call it). So everyone is constantly calling everyone else out, hehe. Introducing the CC aspect of it gives those floaty talks (as Tenka calls it) a lot more grounding. One time gopal and I shared an exchange of stories about experiencing extreme conditions out of doors, and it led to a temporary meeting of minds. I think that there is a whole range of experience that isn't CC but is like the Plato's cave shadows of it, and these run along all manner of matter of degrees, and it strikes me that it's what the tantric approaches are all about.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 10, 2018 7:52:30 GMT -5
That distinguishes it much betterer and I'm in agreement. The rest of what you've written here also does well to summarize the approaches/focuses of the material. Thanks. How different are Seth/ A-H's personalities to those of the channels through which they speak? Curious... Guess I should just read more. My impression is that in Esther's case there's a much better blending of personalities than in Jane's case. For one, just look at the antics when both are channeling and compare. I also consider A-H to be much more clearer than Seth. Although Seth Two comes pretty close to Abraham. But Seth Two doesn't even make up 0.1% of the entire Seth material. So I'd say in Esther's case there's a lot less getting in the way. What comes to mind here is the case of Anandamayi Ma. I read a book years ago by someone who used to live with her and travel around with her. And very often Ma was giving talks where she would say rather unorthodox things or extremely funny stuff and it always looked as if she was surprised at the words that came out of her mouth, as if it wasn't her who said it. Hey, maybe the expression of consciousness here on Earth is evolving just the way the new-ager's predicted it would, after all.
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 12, 2018 21:25:57 GMT -5
"Our heads" are in what it is. As such, what you are is headless (a la Richard Rose, if you wanna read some stuff). SN: True, but it's "a la Douglas harding." I don't think Rose ever got into the headless approach. Etolle: the idea that we are "living in our heads" is a pointer, only. There really isn't a someone who lives in his/her head; this is simply how it appears from a self-referential perspective. The body/mind organism thinks incessantly, and many (or most) of those thoughts are self-referential in nature. Attention stays focused upon thoughts rather than direct sensory perception of the physical world. The body/mind is always present (where else could it be), but when it thinks incessantly, the body/mind is not psychologically present; it lives in a kind of dreamlike state focused on reflective thoughts. Upon waking up from the dream of personal selfhood, it is realized that there is only "what is," and "what is" is a unified intelligent conscious field of being. Thinking is then understood differently than before. Thinking occurs, but there is no person who thinks. The entire process of reality, or "what is," is what thinks and does everything else.
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 12, 2018 21:37:40 GMT -5
"Our heads" are in what it is. As such, what you are is headless (a la Richard Rose, if you wanna read some stuff). SN: True, but it's "a la Douglas harding." I don't think Rose ever got into the headless approach. Etolle: the idea that we are "living in our heads" is a pointer, only. There really isn't a someone who lives in his/her head; this is simply how it appears from a self-referential perspective. The body/mind organism thinks incessantly, and many (or most) of those thoughts are self-referential in nature. Attention stays focused upon thoughts rather than direct sensory perception of the physical world. The body/mind is always present (where else could it be), but when it thinks incessantly, the body/mind is not psychologically present; it lives in a kind of dreamlike state focused on reflective thoughts. Upon waking up from the dream of personal selfhood, it is realized that there is only "what is," and "what is" is a unified intelligent conscious field of being. Thinking is then understood differently than before. Thinking occurs, but there is no person who thinks. The entire process of reality, or "what is," is what thinks and does everything else. zendancer,i need to think about this one. oops.lol...self referential perspective,was how I experienced life until about a month after this question...thank you kind sir.
|
|