Seth's fundamental teachings

[Sena]

I am sure members will differ in their ideas of what are Seth's fundamental teachings. Jbseth has recently highlighted four apparently erroneous predictions made by Seth:

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1604.msg16127#msg16127

So we can't rely on Seth for predictions. I take with a pinch of salt his prediction of the second coming of Christ.
The following are what I consider the two most fundamental Seth teachings:

(1) That physical reality is a "camouflage" reality:

"The settings in your physical environment, the sometimes lovely paraphernalia, the physical aspects of life as you know it, are all camouflages, and so I call your physical reality a camouflage. Yet these camouflages are composed of the vitality of the universe. The rocks and stones and mountains and earth are living camouflage, interlocking psychic webs formed by minute consciousnesses that you cannot perceive as such. The atoms and molecules within them have their own consciousness, as do the atoms and molecules with your body. (10:07.) Since you all have a hand in forming this physical setting, and since you are ensconced yourself in a physical form, then using the physical senses you will only perceive this fantastic setting. The reality that exists both within it and beyond it will elude you. Even the actor is not entirely three-dimensional, however. He is a part of a multidimensional self." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/3QJD264

(2) Seth's teaching about All That Is, a rational alternative to the nonsensical personal God of Christianity:
"All That Is, then, became aware of a kind of creative tumult as each of its superlative thoughts and dreams, moods and feelings, strained at the very edges of their beings, looking for some then-unknown, undiscovered, as of then unthought-of release. I am saying that this mental progeny included all of the consciousnesses that [have] ever appeared or will appear upon your earth—all tenderly couched: the first human being, the first insect—each with an inner knowledge of the possibilities of its development. All That Is, loving its own progeny, sought within itself the answer to this divine dilemma (all very intently, with eyes wide and dark, and with numerous gestures).

(Pause at 9:57.) When that answer came, it involved previously unimaginable leaps of divine inspiration, and it occurred thusly: All That Is searched through the truly infinite assortment of its incredible progeny to see what conditions were needed for this even more magnificent dream, this dream of a freedom of objectivity. What door could open to let physical reality emerge from such an inner realm? When All That Is, in your terms, put all of those conditions together it saw, of course, in a flash, the mental creation of those objective worlds that would be needed—and as it imagined those worlds, in your terms, they were physically created.

[All That Is] did not separate itself from those worlds, however, for they were created from its thoughts, and each one has divine content. The worlds are all created by that divine content, so that while they are on the one hand exterior, they are on the other also made of divine stuff, and each hypothetical point in your universe (pause) is in direct contact with All That Is in the most basic terms. The knowledge of the whole is within all of its parts—and yet All That Is is more than its parts."

—DEaVF1 Chapter 1: Session 883, October 1, 1979

[Deb]

So we can't rely on Seth for predictions. I take with a pinch of salt his prediction of the second coming of Christ.

I have to agree. When you take free will into consideration, it makes sense that most predictions would be, at best, unreliable. And truthfully, with the state of the world right now with conditions and beliefs being so varied and extreme, I feel we are still a long way from one event (such as the return of the Christ personality) changing and uniting humanity. A pinch of salt? For me it's more like a salt lick.

To me, no concept is more fundamental in the Seth materials than that we make our own reality, on both a personal and mass level. That's the first hurdle for people new to Abraham Hicks, Seth, and countless others that present  this concept, and often the first reaction to it is outrage. But I think once people consider what this really means, on not only a "metaphysical" level but also in a practical sense, they hopefully consider that it removes something external as a source of their woes. Not feeling victims of random circumstances and bad luck, this thinking gives them personal power to change unsatisfactory things in their lives for the better. I think that's a much healthier mentality than people giving up because they think everything is against them and they are powerless. There are so many stories I've read of people thriving despite many adverse conditions in their lives, whether financial, mental, physical or other. They manage to carve out successful, rewarding and inspirational lives because they refuse to see themselves as victims.

The concept of our reality being a construction (F2 being the reality behind our scenario) doesn't bother me. I can't grasp it totally from my current perspective, but I'm willing to consider it as possible and I don't feel like it makes a difference to my current existence. Seth is not the only one who said this physical reality of ours is camouflage (including physicists), although others may use different terminology.

I also prefer Seth's explanations of consciousness, ATI, the beginning of our universe, etc. as compared to any religions I've examined. Or science with its ideas of the big bang theory and evolution. And while I also feel these concepts have no real impact on my current life, it's interesting stuff to ponder. I've said it many times—the Seth materials make more sense to me than anything I've come across in my life so far.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Thanks for starting this topic, it's a great one.

I was going to respond to this, this morning but got busy with some other things instead.

I'll respond here now briefly, but I will get back to you on this, in a day or so. I want to think about this some more, there are so many great and interesting Seth topics.


For now, the 2 main ones that come to mind for me this morning were these:

1) Seth's concept that, "You Create Your Reality".

2) Seth's teachings about "Beliefs", how they influence us, how we attract them and how we can change them (as on NOPR).


-jbseth

[Sena]

To me, no concept is more fundamental in the Seth materials than that we make our own reality, on both a personal and mass level.

Deb, jbseth, it seems to me that creating our own reality is only possible because physical reality is camouflage reality. I have not read much of the Abraham Hicks teachings, but does he teach something similar to camouflage reality?

Hicks seems to use the term "vibrational energy" instead of camouflage reality:

"You see your physical nature – the flesh, blood
and bone of you, so to speak. And certainly we acknowledge that you are all of that. But even more
than the physical manifestation that you know as your body, we know you as consciousness, as
vibration and as an extension of the energy stream of Source. You are far more vibration and energy
than you are the physical being that you recognize as you. And it is only when you understand
yourself as a vibrational being that you'll be able to akcnowledge the vibrational energy continuum
that is really you. And it's really only in the conscious realization of that continuum that you'll be
able to fulfil your true reason for being here in this body or to trully enjoy yourself in the process.
Often people feel disoriented when they try to see themselves as vibration or as energy, because
they are accustomed to observing only the physical manifestations of those vibrations. In your
observation of your world and all of its physical characteristics it's easy to get so envolved in the
results of the vibrations that you disregard the vibrations that are responsible for those results."
(From The Amazing Power of Deliberate Intent: Living the Art of Allowing By Esther Hicks, Jerry Hicks)

More quotes from the same Hicks book:

"Your physical body was born with such precise and sophisticated vibrational interpreters that you're
often unaware that you have them or that you use them to define your physical reality. But this is a
vibrational world and everything you perceive is because of your ability to interpret vibration. Your
eyes interpret vibration and therefore you have the sense of sight. Your ears interpret vibration and
therefore you have the sense of hearing. Your nose interprets vibration and therefore you have the
sense of smell. Your skin interprets vibration and therefore you have the sense of feeling. Your
tongue interprets vibration and therefore you have the sense of taste. Your ability to understand the
continuity of who you are as an eternal non-physical being and who you are here in your physical
body comes through the vibrational interpreters that you call emotions."

"Your awareness of the vibrational variance between what you're vibrationally offering in this
moment and the vibrational offering of your Inner-Being is literally your emotional guidance
system. And when you think of the continuum between you and you, this makes perfect sense. You
are an extension of the Source Energy you. And here you are, out here on this leading-edge of
thought, focusing upon some subject. And as you focus your perspective upon this subject, you
offer a vibrational frequency which either matches or does not match the frequency of the way your
Inner-Being you sees it. For example, let us say that you make a mistake as you're doing your work
today. You discover your msitake and you correct it, but then you belittle yourself or feel guilty
about your error. You use the making of the mistake as your reason to think unkindly about
yourself, and in doing so you deviate from the loving frequency of the Inner you."

[jbseth]

Deb, jbseth, it seems to me that creating our own reality is only possible because physical reality is camouflage reality.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be rude or antagonistic here, but that's not my understanding of what Seth says about this.

When Seth talks about camouflage, this concept, as far as I know, is always used to describe physical reality.  However, "creating your own reality" is a fundamental process, and it occurs no matter where you are. In physical reality or outside of physical reality.



SS, Ch9, S535:

A belief in hell fires can cause you to hallucinate Hades' conditions. A belief in a stereotyped heaven can result in a hallucination of heavenly conditions. You always form your own reality according to your ideas and expectations. This is the nature of consciousness in whatever reality it finds itself. Such hallucinations, I assure you, are temporary.



SS, Chapter 10, S538:

(10:54.) Your experience, in other words, follows your expectations. Now the same applies to after-death experience and to the dream experience, and to any out-of-body encounters. If you are obsessed with the idea of evil, then you will meet evil conditions. If you believe in devils, then you will encounter these. As I mentioned earlier, there is greater freedom when consciousness is not physically directed. Thoughts and emotions are constructed, again, into reality without the physical time lapse. So if you believe you will be met by a demon, you will create your own thought-form of one, not realizing that it is of your own creation.



-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Regarding Seth's Fundamental Teachings. I'd say that for me, there are 5. The last 2 being somewhat different in nature than the first 3.


1
Seth's teaching regarding, "You Create your Reality."


2
Seth's teaching about "Beliefs".


3
Seth's teaching about "Probable Realities."
This concept opened up a world of possibilities to me.


4
To me, Seth's Framework of Beliefs has more completeness about it, than any other framework (Science, Christianity, Existentialism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, Voodoo, Wicca, etc.) that I've ever encountered (see my explanation regarding "completeness" below).


5
To me, Seth's Framework of Beliefs, is the most plausible and valid framework of all (Science, Christianity, Existentialism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, Voodoo, Wicca, etc.) that I've ever encountered.



Explanation of Completeness:
Regarding my item 4 above, it has always seemed to me that some of these other frameworks, have a fair amount of incompleteness about them. I'll explain what I mean by this using examples from Science, Christianity and Eastern Philosophies.

Science, while giving us some great models for how things work in physical reality, seems to have an incompleteness about it in regards to being willing or able to explain other phenomenon, such as what happens after death, psychic experiences, ghosts, OBEs and NDE's. Rather than investigate these things and try to figure them out, they just tell us that they aren't real.

In Christianity, after you die and go to heaven, there's seems to be an incompleteness about this religion in regards to what happens next. I'm not aware of anyone who can answer to this question. What happens after you go to heaven? This is just one of many examples of incompleteness that seems to exist in Christianity.

In many Eastern philosophies, there's the idea that we keep reincarnating to work off our negative Karma. Then once this is accomplished, we apparently join into oneness with God.  My question is this. Who decides, what is positive and negative Karma? How does this process work? In addition to this what are the guidelines for this? To me, there seems to be an incompleteness with this philosophy, in that nobody seems to have an answer to these questions.

For the most part, I'd say that Seth's Framework of Beliefs, has the least amount of incompleteness of them all. Seth tells us what happens after we die and even what happens after our re-incarnational cycles are over.  He also explains the nature of All That Is and pretty much ties all of his ideas together.


- jbseth

[Sena]

In many Eastern philosophies, there's the idea that we keep reincarnating to work off our negative Karma. Then once this is accomplished, we apparently join into oneness with God.

jbseth, in Buddhism, especially Theravada Buddhism, there is no God. Once you work off all your karma, you end up in the state of Nirvana. Nobody is clear as to what Nirvana is. I could even be nothingness!! I am glad that Seth rejects the concept of Nirvana.

We could add to Seth's fundamental concepts that of the Entity:

"The trouble is that you frequently consider the soul or entity as a finished, static "thing" that belongs to you but is not you. The soul or entity — in other words, your most intimate powerful inner identity — is and must be forever changing. It is not, therefore, something like a cherished heirloom. It is alive, responsive, curious. It forms the flesh and the world that you know, and it is in a state of becoming. Now, in the three-dimensional reality in which your ego has its main focus, becoming presupposes arrival, or a destination — an ending to that which has been in a state of becoming. But the soul or entity has its existence basically in other dimensions, and in these, fulfillment is not dependent upon arrivals at any points, spiritual or otherwise. The soul or entity is always in a state of flux, or learning, and of developments that have to do with subjective experience rather than with time or space. This is not nearly as mysterious as it might sound. Each of my readers plays a game in which the egotistical conscious self pretends not to know what the whole self definitely does know. Since the ego is definitely a part of the whole self, then it must necessarily be basically aware of such knowledge. In its intense focus in physical reality, however, it pretends not to know, until it feels able to utilize the information in physical terms. You do have access to the inner self, therefore. You are hardly cut off from your own soul or entity. The ego prefers to consider itself the captain at the helm, so to speak, since it is the ego who most directly deals with the sometimes tumultuous seas of physical reality, and it does not want to be distracted from this task." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/hMRTVsv

[Deb]

it seems to me that creating our own reality is only possible because physical reality is camouflage reality. I have not read much of the Abraham Hicks teachings, but does he teach something similar to camouflage reality?

I would have to think about that first part of what you say above. It does make sense to me, in that we are creating a reality that wouldn't otherwise exist as it is without our input. It's malleable. I still think camouflage is not the best word. Seth said there are many systems of reality, ours only being one. Some are physical, some are not. All are being created by its inhabitants. In the movie or play analogy, we (reality) are the audience and watching a fabricated show (the camouflage reality), and for a time we suspend our beliefs in order to allow ourselves to be fully immersed in the story. We don't call a movie set or stage camouflage reality.

So what of Framework 2? Is F2 the only "real" reality? Seth said we can create things most efficiently and instantly there, there's no time lag like we have here. If "we" can already do that in F2, why are we here? I guess we here in F1 are not yet up to par.

It's been a long time since I read the Abraham Hicks stuff. The Law of Attraction book and movie were based on the (hijacked) teachings. A-H is very diluted Seth material. All I remember is that you make your own reality, your beliefs are a filter, and that you set an intention and get out of the way so the "universe" can do its job to fulfill your expectations and desires. Very little as far as details. But because of that, a broader audience can be reached.

The vibration and energy stuff A-H talks about is more equivalent to the idea that we each have our own unique, signature frequency that is our individual consciousness. Based on the idea that everything is composed of energy, everything and everyone has their unique frequency. Extension of the Source Energy relates to us being an offshoot of our entity, which is an offshoot of ATI. The stuff about matching or not matching the frequency of our inner being means that our essence/inner being/higher self is innately good and pure in its intentions. If we feel bad about something, something about ourselves, that's an indicated of a mismatch between our inner self's view (the loving frequency of the Inner you) and how we as an individual see ourselves (ego). It's a clue that we are judging ourselves based on external input, such as religion (original sin, we are defective).

[LenKop]

One of the fundamental teachings I have learned is the difference, and deference, that is paid to any 'reality'.

It's hard not to agree that Seth's main teaching was we create our own reality, but I found personally that it put into a fresh light the importance of the physical world. I learned to respect the camouflage, just as the artist respects the paint, the canvas, the brushes, etc and not just the final artwork. Are not the tools of creativity as important as the creativity itself?

The teachings of many a spiritual philosophy informs us of the illusion of the physical life; whereas from Seth, I felt more as though my physical world was a reflection, rather than an illusion, thus giving me a deeper sense of power and responsibility in changing my life as I see fit, and a greater enjoyment and satisfaction from the results.

'I told you the self was not limited, yet surely you think that your self stops where your skin meets space, that you are inside your skin. Period. Yet your environment is an extension of your self. It is the body of your experience, coalesced in physical form. The inner self forms the objects that you know as surely and automatically as it forms your finger or your eye.

'Your environment is the physical picture of your thoughts, emotions and beliefs made visible. Since your thoughts, emotions and beliefs move through space and time, you therefore affect physical conditions separate from you.' NoPR Ch 2

Len

[Sena]

So what of Framework 2? Is F2 the only "real" reality? Seth said we can create things most efficiently and instantly there, there's no time lag like we have here. If "we" can already do that in F2, why are we here? I guess we here in F1 are not yet up to par.

Deb, this is one area of the Seth teachings which seems quite important but is not easy to understand. Lynda Madden Dahl tries to clarify, but whether she succeeds in clarifying could be a matter for debate:

"The main purpose of this chapter, then, is to hammer home the point that all we are doing, ever, is manipulating our psychic energy with the purpose of experiencing. Do not think for one nanosecond that we are doing anything other than that-albeit with great individual goals, reasons and purposes. In Framework 1, that experiencing of psychic energy takes the form of our bodies, objects, space, time, events and all interactions. And it is our mental acts-thoughts, emotions, imagination-that direct our inner selves in the manipulation of the psychic energy of CUs and EE units into those experiences, first in Framework 2, then in Framework 1. If we forget we are psychic energy manipulating psychic energy for a purpose, we start to see physical reality and everything within it as a conglomeration of standalone events, items and issues outside our reference of creation or control. When that happens, we lose sense of the bigger picture of our experience and our safety within it-and that is not what we want to do, either in this book or in our private realities. So, in this chapter we will mesh the two frameworks together in our minds by exploring how the experience in one always affects the experience in the other. And we actually have a precedence for this way of thinking. Early man believed in Framework 2's meshing with Framework 1. It was only as man became more removed from nature that he misplaced this valuable gift of knowledge. Early man, however, still well understood the interaction of Framework 1 with Framework 2. For instance, he sensed within an object the thought, emotion and imagination that created it. He saw that they creatively work hand-in-hand in the frameworks, and he used that knowledge as part of his experience. For instance, once early man became aware of the fact that illness is caused by thought and emotion, he then taught himself to imaginatively cure it. To him, it was not cause and effect (as we accept it) that was integral to creating daily events, but his own mental acts. And because of his larger identification with this greater reality, early man also knew death not as an end, but simply as a transformation of consciousness into another form of experience." (from "Living a Safe Universe, Vol. 3: A Book for Seth Readers (Living a Safe Universe: A Book for Seth Readers)" by Lynda Madden Dahl)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/aJIV6Kn

It seems to me that Lynda's writing clarifies the meaning of creating one's own reality. Someone could create a reality of winning a million dollars in a lottery, but would that fulfil the purpose of coming into Framework 1? Lynda specifically mentions the question of illness and death. Choosing to not be affected by a virus, to recover from a virus, or to die from a virus would be an instance of "manipulating our psychic energy with the purpose of experiencing".

This is what Seth himself says about the nature of matter and psychic energy:

"Matter is continually created, but no particular physical object is in itself continuous. Change in a particular physical object is not change as you conceive it. There is not, for example, one particular physical object that deteriorates with age. There are instead continuous, for now I will say continuous creations, of psychic energy into a physical pattern that appears to hold a more or less rigid appearance. This appearance appears, that is, this physical object appears to change and to age, but the material does neither. It does not exist long enough to do either, for one thing. There is an infinite number or series of creations of matter. The ability of the individual creator of any particular physical form to use psychic energy to control and manipulate causes the outer appearance of deterioration and aging of matter. Matter itself does not age or deteriorate. This may throw you, but I will prove my case. I will also prove it even in so far as the so-called aging of rock formations and other archeological events are concerned. Matter is created directly from energy on a subconscious level. The matter is spontaneously and instantaneously created. As you know, or should know, this applies to the human physical form as well as to all other material. You are seeing in slow motion when you think you see growth and decay as being properties of matter. Any material object is being constantly recreated, according to a form that may appear rigid and fairly permanent. It is however the passing through of individualized, highly specialized psychic personality patterns. It is the passing through of these personality patterns, within a certain field of organization that causes the appearance of both fairly rigid material which then seems to change." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 2 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

[Sena]

'I told you the self was not limited, yet surely you think that your self stops where your skin meets space, that you are inside your skin. Period. Yet your environment is an extension of your self. It is the body of your experience, coalesced in physical form. The inner self forms the objects that you know as surely and automatically as it forms your finger or your eye.

'Your environment is the physical picture of your thoughts, emotions and beliefs made visible. Since your thoughts, emotions and beliefs move through space and time, you therefore affect physical conditions separate from you.' NoPR Ch 2

Len, thanks for your valuable contribution after a long break.