To reemphasize the "non-being" emphasized is primarily directed to against the "being" that is egoic "I - thing" dichotomy. The non-being expressed is an "emptiness" in the sense of liberating oneself from taking beliefs, expectations, assumptions, ideas, etc. as the pudding. The "Ultimate" referenced here is a slippery fish. What "Ultimate?" Ultimate in the sense of the most diminished filter of reality? Is there a perception of reality that is without any filter? Wouldn't the human sensory nervous system (both internal and external) be considered a kind of human-machine interpretation? Slippery, ain't it?
Cole: While 'Consciousness' seems fundamental, consciousness actually arises out of nothingness- therefore nothingness or non-being is actually fundamental, or shall we say- inevitable.
Here is where the semantic war begins. Often this idea of "nothingness" is associated with a state of being within the larger reality that appears as "nothingness." However it is not strictly a nothingness. No has little sense or no sense of all of a body or of as an abstracted identity as that which is created by the mind when we are not paying attention (letting thought motion) run the show of our Physical Matter Reality body, but there is something there. In MBT it's described as "Zero point consciousness," which is a much better description than sheer nothingness, or the unnameable, or the void, or the mystery, or the vastness beyond the veil, or whatever hell one chooses to call it. However there isn't really a nothingness. There is an oceanic space and YOU are there, thus consciousness IS aware of the "nothingness". And there are processes going on about you if you are able to hold your attention. Ted invokes "INDRA'S NET" which is a metaphor for what this "void"/"zero point consciousness" experience is--a kind of network. When people encounter this network and it's vastness "NOTHINGNESS" is assumed a fundamental e.g. no-, non-, etc. But What's going on here is when this network is encountered it is so drastically different from our physical and mental experience of self it becomes perceived as "no-self," "non-being," "nothing" when it is merely it is the internal mechanics of the performance "out here." Remember these spaces were first encountered by driven, artistic, poetic, individuals--even after they stopped paying attention to all their egoic parts when it came to non-physical experience they retained some assumptions non-physical, or at least the writers and preachers did.
Cole: So exploring other realities/the "larger" reality, I believe, (more so than a control device), is thought of as more of a distraction than anything- or delaying the "inevitable" - and thereby prolonging "frustration" and suffering.
Here we have "believe" which you way want to examine. Inevitability of what? Frustration and suffering very much arise from the ego's pack of buddies: expectation, belief, assumption, fear, concept, rationalization, intellect.
Ego doesn't really like anything that doesn't stroke it and that which doesn't stroke ego at all, let alone give it the time of day, is truth. Belief strokes the ego. Expectations stroke the ego. Assumptions stroke the ego. Fear, believe it or not, strokes the ego. Intellect DAMN SURE strokes the ego. None of the above is really to be trusted. BUT you really gotta ride this one out for yourself. Thinking about it won't do a damn thing except exhaust the hamster. If you aren't into non-physical experience outside of emotion, ecstasy, etc, than rock on. It's not a necessity. In fact THERE IS NO NECESSITY. Oh what mad fun in deed! There's nothing to worry about anyway. Just watch the show and watch the watcher and see what seems.
"It's just data."
I wrote a book about Tom: http://amzn.to/2knSVJX