|
|
Post by zin on Jul 8, 2017 8:24:59 GMT -5
I will take a few posts from the Niz thread here, will reply to them later. (summer indeed does not leave much time for here (for me)).
|
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 8, 2017 8:26:27 GMT -5
Ok, 'temporary measure' explanation lightens the issue for me. I understand the typically not having children, too. Some questions come to my mind, like what about the families of prophets : ) Their parents, their children.. But 'Entity' must be a big concept - maybe I will come across something about these there. (and I don't know what he says on such influential figures of history) As a general rule, entities send forth personalities. But in some cases, personalities can also become entities. According to Seth, that's Jane's and Robert's path. Reincarnation is a very complex topic. There are many possible scenarios. Here's a quote: I got curious about the 'electric universe'! I searched it in The Nature of Personal Reality but didn't find it there. Can you tell where it is explained most? That may be my second book. The below is what sounds related: "It might help if you imagine an inner living dimension within yourself in which you create, in miniature psychic form, all the exterior conditions that you know. Simply put, you do exactly this. Your thoughts, feelings and mental pictures can be called incipient exterior events, for in one way or another each of these is materialized into physical reality."It's mentioned in The Early Sessions, first mentioned in book 3, I believe. It's only remotely related to the Electric Universe theory some renegade physicists have developed recently. Seth's electric universe has more to do with astral bodies and stuff. It's a different plane of existence. But it's closely connected to the physical plane, both constantly interact with each other, one influencing the other. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 8, 2017 8:28:21 GMT -5
Thank you for this Seth quote! Especially the part about Buddha, Christ, and Michelangelo is the most beautiful thing I read (heard) from him until now. And it reminded me of something from Gurdjieff teachings. I don't have a wish to mix the two materials but still I will think a bit on it and will write soon. (and will return to electric universe, too) When I started reading Seth, I was just curious where he would agree or disagree with A-H. Now I'm deeply involved in the Seth material and it's been a fascinating journey so far. It put A-H and even non-duality into a new perspective. And since Seth gives it all a somewhat scientific basis, I think it's going to convince even the more skeptical folks. Although Seth is talking about reincarnation, different planes of existence and channeling and telepathy all the time, he does hate the mainstream new age stuff with a passion. (That's why I think Laughter will love Seth)  So I'd say, if you can see some links to other teachers, then this can only be helpful for further and deeper understanding, especially if they have their own unique vocabulary. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 8, 2017 8:29:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 8, 2017 14:30:08 GMT -5
"To complete our picture we must remember that there exists a third circle-the circle of the electronic world or spirit-and that this circle exists in another dimension. This other circle must rise out of the plane of time altogether, must lie at right angles to time. Here there will be neither forward time not backward time, because all time-past, present and future-will be spread out below. Time will exist without flow, as the whole long body of the solar system, simultaneously presided over by the Fates of past, present and future, co-existed or was spread out in sight of Er the Pamphylian. In the third circle there can be no cause and no effect, because all is simultaneously one. Man's future is shown continuous with his past and his past with his future..." pgs 54,55, chapter, Time in the Invisible Worlds, The Theory of Eternal Life by Rodney Collin, Shambhala edition 1984 |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 10, 2017 8:13:05 GMT -5
As a general rule, entities send forth personalities. But in some cases, personalities can also become entities. According to Seth, that's Jane's and Robert's path. Reincarnation is a very complex topic. There are many possible scenarios. Here's a quote: Seth: "Now if there is good communication between the self, that is the inner self and the outer ego, then the ego begins to understand what it is, and also to realize that it has greater capacities than it can realize by continued reincarnations, upon one plane. If the ego is exceptional it may take one of two courses.It may choose to return to the same plane as a great originator, using knowledge that it receives from the inner self to make lasting and original innovations upon that plane, according to its interests, abilities and capacity. It will therefore become a Buddha, a Christ, a Michelangelo, a hero in one field or another, an ego who changes the physical world completely in untold manners by the mere fact of its existence. It then does not reincarnate again upon that plane. However because of its own extraordinary nature, it itself forms with the inner self in an added gestalt, adding to the energy and ability of the inner self; and in a manner which I cannot yet explain to you, it voluntarily may give up its ego identification to a large degree for the purpose of giving its full energies to the store of the inner self. That is one possibility. It is followed by egos who have actually worn out not this energy, which is tremendous, but their desires. Other egos choose instead to become entities of their own, in which case this magnificent outer ego becomes in turn an inner ego, which then from its own unfulfilled desires, abilities and initiatives are formed new outer egos which once again seek fulfillment. Such an outer ego turned inner ego, has only experienced existence then upon a particular plane. It is therefore filled with impatience as far as existence upon other planes are concerned; and therefore if it developed upon your plane initially, it will not choose to initiate anew there, but will choose other planes of activity." (Session 58) Firstly I will say that I am not a representative of the Gurdjieff teaching, I've never worked with a teacher or a group in that tradition. What I will write is what I got mainly from Gurdjieff's and his student JG Bennett's writings. Secondly, this is a teaching which says man is an evolving being - so you will read about a 'ladder' here. The Seth quote reminded me of what G told about differences in man. There are the people of consensus trance (but he didn't use these words!), who are mainly dominated by either their body/instincts, or emotions, or thoughts. They are not conscious, he calls them asleep. Then there is man who is in transition, who feels that something is wrong in that kind of life, and tries to awaken. He makes some efforts, looks for a spiritual path. And finally there is man who is awakened, fully conscious, he has developed some psychic powers, too. Here, *after* awakening (but I am not sure how you'd call this awakening in nonduality; I mean 'SR' or not), there are different levels, too. At the first level (he calls this 'man nr 5'), the person has attained unity and has one 'indivisible I'. Bennett says: "As we come closer to unity, the nature and meaning of our lives changes. Not only our perception and understanding change, but how we can live. We do not exist in a vacuum. Our own development serves to bring us closer into contact with other beings and also to bring us under the influence of what lies beyond existence altogether." But this man nr 5 can be an evil person, too! I won't write more about this but will say that in this case he can't go up to the level of man nr 6. He has to go back (through suffering) and lose the being of his level for this. And, man nr 6.. As far as I understand, his main difference from man nr 5 is that he is able to put himself in place of others. He has gone beyond himself. He has made a commitment of service but I don't necessarily take this service as "feed the poor" etc.. It is here that G teaching becomes most interesting for me and when I come across info (like in Seth) which seems to talk on the points in this post, I want to learn more. I will add more about man nr 6 (and 7) later. ps. I can continue here or in the Seth Material thread, for now here seems better. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 10, 2017 10:49:04 GMT -5
Firstly I will say that I am not a representative of the Gurdjieff teaching, I've never worked with a teacher or a group in that tradition. What I will write is what I got mainly from Gurdjieff's and his student JG Bennett's writings. Secondly, this is a teaching which says man is an evolving being - so you will read about a 'ladder' here. The Seth quote reminded me of what G told about differences in man. There are the people of consensus trance (but he didn't use these words!), who are mainly dominated by either their body/instincts, or emotions, or thoughts. They are not conscious, he calls them asleep. Then there is man who is in transition, who feels that something is wrong in that kind of life, and tries to awaken. He makes some efforts, looks for a spiritual path. And finally there is man who is awakened, fully conscious, he has developed some psychic powers, too. Here, *after* awakening (but I am not sure how you'd call this awakening in nonduality; I mean 'SR' or not), there are different levels, too. At the first level (he calls this 'man nr 5'), the person has attained unity and has one 'indivisible I'. Bennett says: "As we come closer to unity, the nature and meaning of our lives changes. Not only our perception and understanding change, but how we can live. We do not exist in a vacuum. Our own development serves to bring us closer into contact with other beings and also to bring us under the influence of what lies beyond existence altogether." But this man nr 5 can be an evil person, too! I won't write more about this but will say that in this case he can't go up to the level of man nr 6. He has to go back (through suffering) and lose the being of his level for this. And, man nr 6.. As far as I understand, his main difference from man nr 5 is that he is able to put himself in place of others. He has gone beyond himself. He has made a commitment of service but I don't necessarily take this service as "feed the poor" etc.. It is here that G teaching becomes most interesting for me and when I come across info (like in Seth) which seems to talk on the points in this post, I want to learn more. I will add more about man nr 6 (and 7) later. ps. I can continue here or in the Seth Material thread, for now here seems better. That's more related to CC than SR. The Seth material is also mainly CC related. What CC does, it opens up what Seth calls 'inner reality' and what A-H would call 'the non-physical' - which is experienced directly. Seth calls this experience the psychedelic (or mystic) experience. And in the Seth teachings, that's the starting point, not the end. The goal is absolutely not to get rid of the outer ego, the goal is to integrate the outer ego with the inner ego, which means the two merge. It's similar to A-H when they suggest that the goal is to become more inner being like. A-H also mostly talk about CC only. The impression I get from Seth and A-H is that they somehow take SR as a given. They don't really talk about it and yet it is always somehow implied. It's definitely not the big deal as it is around here. The focus is mostly on CC related stuff. That's the territory of the journey they talk about. |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jul 10, 2017 11:07:17 GMT -5
Lol...this Seth guy seems to do a whole lot of thinking and complex model building.
|
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jul 10, 2017 11:09:14 GMT -5
Everything just IS
If you want to add to that then be creative about what IS
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 10, 2017 11:56:32 GMT -5
Firstly I will say that I am not a representative of the Gurdjieff teaching, I've never worked with a teacher or a group in that tradition. What I will write is what I got mainly from Gurdjieff's and his student JG Bennett's writings. Secondly, this is a teaching which says man is an evolving being - so you will read about a 'ladder' here. The Seth quote reminded me of what G told about differences in man. There are the people of consensus trance (but he didn't use these words!), who are mainly dominated by either their body/instincts, or emotions, or thoughts. They are not conscious, he calls them asleep. Then there is man who is in transition, who feels that something is wrong in that kind of life, and tries to awaken. He makes some efforts, looks for a spiritual path. And finally there is man who is awakened, fully conscious, he has developed some psychic powers, too. Here, *after* awakening (but I am not sure how you'd call this awakening in nonduality; I mean 'SR' or not), there are different levels, too. At the first level (he calls this 'man nr 5'), the person has attained unity and has one 'indivisible I'. Bennett says: "As we come closer to unity, the nature and meaning of our lives changes. Not only our perception and understanding change, but how we can live. We do not exist in a vacuum. Our own development serves to bring us closer into contact with other beings and also to bring us under the influence of what lies beyond existence altogether." But this man nr 5 can be an evil person, too! I won't write more about this but will say that in this case he can't go up to the level of man nr 6. He has to go back (through suffering) and lose the being of his level for this. And, man nr 6.. As far as I understand, his main difference from man nr 5 is that he is able to put himself in place of others. He has gone beyond himself. He has made a commitment of service but I don't necessarily take this service as "feed the poor" etc.. It is here that G teaching becomes most interesting for me and when I come across info (like in Seth) which seems to talk on the points in this post, I want to learn more. I will add more about man nr 6 (and 7) later. ps. I can continue here or in the Seth Material thread, for now here seems better. That's more related to CC than SR. The Seth material is also mainly CC related. What CC does, it opens up what Seth calls 'inner reality' and what A-H would call 'the non-physical' - which is experienced directly. Seth calls this experience the psychedelic (or mystic) experience. And in the Seth teachings, that's the starting point, not the end. The goal is absolutely not to get rid of the outer ego, the goal is to integrate the outer ego with the inner ego, which means the two merge. It's similar to A-H when they suggest that the goal is to become more inner being like. A-H also mostly talk about CC only. The impression I get from Seth and A-H is that they somehow take SR as a given. They don't really talk about it and yet it is always somehow implied. It's definitely not the big deal as it is around here. The focus is mostly on CC related stuff. That's the territory of the journey they talk about. Well, I think we have to make a distinction here between SR and ND. I would say Seth and A-H would say ND is a given. The "modern" SR seem to negate the relevancy and meaning of the manifest universe, duality. The SR seem to be saying, OK, the party's over, the great riddle is solved, let's just put all the toys back in the box. Gurdjieff wrote about Oneness and Unity, but ATST he saw a purpose for the manifest universe. IOW, the "game" is about consciousness evolving, not ~all about~ SR. An analogy, everything on your computer is constructed merely by 1's and 0's. (We could say 1 = manifest, circuit on; 0 = unmanifest, circuit off). Now, does knowing that negate everything, negate all the information on your computer, negate all the internet and negate all the people connected via the internet? That's what the "modern" SR seem to be saying, since All Is One, that negates two-ness, duality. So if one is SR, duality is superfluous. That's the divide I see between the consciousness evolves bunch and the consciousness does not evolve bunch. The SR are pretty adamant about this question, saying consciousness does not evolve, and if you think it does, you are just plain simply wrong. And I would say the problem in physics is directly related, everybody is looking for a TOE, Theory of Oneness. Maybe there is a TOE, maybe there can't be, because it takes 1's and 0's to ~make the universe~, maybe it takes two fundamental laws to make the universe. Maybe the wave-particle problem cannot be solved ~in this universe~. How can something be both wave and particle simultaneously? Maybe it takes a higher dimension. Maybe the question of the differences between General Relativity and quantum mechanics will never be resolved, from our POV. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 21:02:31 GMT -5
That's more related to CC than SR. The Seth material is also mainly CC related. What CC does, it opens up what Seth calls 'inner reality' and what A-H would call 'the non-physical' - which is experienced directly. Seth calls this experience the psychedelic (or mystic) experience. And in the Seth teachings, that's the starting point, not the end. The goal is absolutely not to get rid of the outer ego, the goal is to integrate the outer ego with the inner ego, which means the two merge. It's similar to A-H when they suggest that the goal is to become more inner being like. A-H also mostly talk about CC only. The impression I get from Seth and A-H is that they somehow take SR as a given. They don't really talk about it and yet it is always somehow implied. It's definitely not the big deal as it is around here. The focus is mostly on CC related stuff. That's the territory of the journey they talk about. Well, I think we have to make a distinction here between SR and ND. I would say Seth and A-H would say ND is a given. The "modern" SR seem to negate the relevancy and meaning of the manifest universe, duality. The SR seem to be saying, OK, the party's over, the great riddle is solved, let's just put all the toys back in the box. Gurdjieff wrote about Oneness and Unity, but ATST he saw a purpose for the manifest universe. IOW, the "game" is about consciousness evolving, not ~all about~ SR. An analogy, everything on your computer is constructed merely by 1's and 0's. (We could say 1 = manifest, circuit on; 0 = unmanifest, circuit off). Now, does knowing that negate everything, negate all the information on your computer, negate all the internet and negate all the people connected via the internet? That's what the "modern" SR seem to be saying, since All Is One, that negates two-ness, duality. So if one is SR, duality is superfluous. That's the divide I see between the consciousness evolves bunch and the consciousness does not evolve bunch. The SR are pretty adamant about this question, saying consciousness does not evolve, and if you think it does, you are just plain simply wrong. And I would say the problem in physics is directly related, everybody is looking for a TOE, Theory of Oneness. Maybe there is a TOE, maybe there can't be, because it takes 1's and 0's to ~make the universe~, maybe it takes two fundamental laws to make the universe. Maybe the wave-particle problem cannot be solved ~in this universe~. How can something be both wave and particle simultaneously? Maybe it takes a higher dimension. Maybe the question of the differences between General Relativity and quantum mechanics will never be resolved, from our POV. The Universe itself moves as One, it is the experience or the exploration of it that is dualistic. Consciousness is how, exploration and experience is happening. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 21:05:15 GMT -5
Everything just IS If you want to add to that then be creative about what IS Sometimes the Is, misses it's shot. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 10, 2017 22:07:29 GMT -5
Lol...this Seth guy seems to do a whole lot of thinking and complex model building. You bet! But he's very much aware of it and how it is distorting actuality. But it's the only way to talk about it in this physical space-time format. It comes with the territory. The Seth material are just pointers. Seth urges us to experience it directly. And I actually think the psychedelic (or mystic) experience stuff Seth talks about would be right up your ally, Steve. Everything just IS If you want to add to that then be creative about what IS Agreed. And Seth would say you can't help but add to it no matter what you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 10, 2017 22:30:50 GMT -5
Well, I think we have to make a distinction here between SR and ND. I would say Seth and A-H would say ND is a given. The "modern" SR seem to negate the relevancy and meaning of the manifest universe, duality. The SR seem to be saying, OK, the party's over, the great riddle is solved, let's just put all the toys back in the box. Gurdjieff wrote about Oneness and Unity, but ATST he saw a purpose for the manifest universe. IOW, the "game" is about consciousness evolving, not ~all about~ SR. An analogy, everything on your computer is constructed merely by 1's and 0's. (We could say 1 = manifest, circuit on; 0 = unmanifest, circuit off). Now, does knowing that negate everything, negate all the information on your computer, negate all the internet and negate all the people connected via the internet? That's what the "modern" SR seem to be saying, since All Is One, that negates two-ness, duality. So if one is SR, duality is superfluous. That's the divide I see between the consciousness evolves bunch and the consciousness does not evolve bunch. The SR are pretty adamant about this question, saying consciousness does not evolve, and if you think it does, you are just plain simply wrong. And I would say the problem in physics is directly related, everybody is looking for a TOE, Theory of Oneness. Maybe there is a TOE, maybe there can't be, because it takes 1's and 0's to ~make the universe~, maybe it takes two fundamental laws to make the universe. Maybe the wave-particle problem cannot be solved ~in this universe~. How can something be both wave and particle simultaneously? Maybe it takes a higher dimension. Maybe the question of the differences between General Relativity and quantum mechanics will never be resolved, from our POV. Yes, they both say that there is no separation. Seth talks about open and closed systems. He says that all closed systems only seem that way. In reality there are no closed systems. It's all one. And system here can mean an atom, a cell, an organ, a human being, a nation, a solar system or a universe, an ego or a self or an entity etc. According to Seth, the purpose of consciousness (or energy) is to know itself (or to experience itself). And that's the driving force behind any creation. SDP, keep in mind that SR is just one side of the coin. If you've only got a reference for SR, realization is not complete. It can result in a rather unbalanced view of things. The other side of the coin is CC. Arguing solely from a SR perspective (see Satch) is as unbalanced a view as solely arguing from a CC perspective (see Tenka). The two belong together. From the perspective of self, SR and CC are earth-shattering and somehow final because they change self's perspective once and for all. From the perspective of Self, they are just the beginning, because they just represent an opening to a larger reality, similar to a prison break. It's true that All-That-Is in terms of basic reality, is what it is. But it's also true that All-That-Is in terms of self-expression is constantly changing and evolving. Seth once said, if you are probing into matter you will eventually arrive at All-That-Is. And if you are probing into All-That-Is, you will eventually arrive at matter. What you have to ask the SR folks is "Okay, self is an illusion. But it's still there. Duality is still there. You are still focused in it. It's still your experience. Now what?" |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 10, 2017 22:38:33 GMT -5
Bakk, with your new avatar, I always think you are Lolly!  |
|
