Seth on "Compassion"

[jbseth]

Hi All,

I've noticed with many of the negative news stories that are hitting the internet, (George Floyd, JK Rowling's comment about transwomen, etc.) that many of these issues seem to occur because people seem to have a lack of "compassion" for others.

And yet, it may very well be this lack of "compassion" that's part of the problem here.

I suspect that many of these issues would never occur, if these people had seriously came from a place of asking the question, "What would love do?" before they ever responded?


I did a search on the word, "compassion" on the Seth Search Engine, and discovered that there were only 57 entries for this word.  Surprisingly, when Seth used this word, there was quite a bit of variation, in what he had to say about it. The spoiler below contains a list pf some of the many things that Seth had to say about compassion. By the way, I attempted to group these comments together where possible.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

-jbseth

[Sena]

An excess of male lives will turn a personality sour in a feminine manner, without the inner understanding and compassion that is usually associated with the female sex. In like manner consistent female personalities will turn harsh without the inner strength usually associated with the male sex. For this reason most entities live lives as male and female.

jbseth, I found this part of your quote quite interesing. J.K.Rowling is saying that the urge to change sex has gone too far. Perhaps some people should be patient and wait for their next life. She is being accused of being "transphobic", but I think that is unfair.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-transgender-letter-twitter-trans-people-a9559346.html

[Deb]

And yet, it may very well be this lack of "compassion" that's part of the problem here.

One of the main purposes of our existence "here" is to learn compassion. That's the ideal. It rates right up there with learning how to use our consciousness to become co-creators of our reality, which at the moment seems related to me. I think of what Seth said about karma (not the typically accepted definition), is that people must eventually understand that when you harm another, you really are harming yourself. That's what we need to understand.

Oddly enough, I just read this article this morning and thought this was an ironically obvious demonstration of "instant karma," no doubt lost on the victim. I was trying to find a way to share it here, that didn't take long. 
https://nypost.com/2020/06/07/man-blew-off-hand-making-explosives-to-target-hot-cheerleaders/

"Karma is merely in the physical plane, the result of personal development, and represents the maturing realization that we are all psychically and physically part of All There Is, and that when we wound, it is not another that we wound but ourselves."
—TES3 Session 89 September 19, 1964

I think compassion is completely tied in with seeing things as they are, or seeing "what is." Seeing the unique individuality of every living thing, and knowing it has a subjective reality, and that I am not separate from any being, thing, or place. When we project false beliefs outward onto "what is", compassion can be lost. The protester no longer sees each police officer as unique and individual, but as a symbol of great evil. The reverse can also be true. So, what I see fighting in the streets are asleep individuals fighting their own projections, and ultimately not realizing they're fighting themselves.

Wow, was brilliant. Your whole post. We all are blinded to some degree with belief filters, and I think people also tend to generalize too much (I realize I just did that here myself). When they do that they are not seeing the whole picture. I also feel the original, sincere protests over the Floyd incident have been hijacked by groups that have their own agendas.

Humans are all at different levels of learning. It seems to me that right now everyone is too quick to point fingers and blame others for being one way or another, whether it involves gender, race, career choice, political persuasion. In this lifetime, I don't remember the world, this country, being as hostile and divided as it is now. IDK, maybe that's how progress gets made—the pendulum of society swings dramatically back and forth, over-correcting, until it settles somewhere in the middle.

I can only hope.

BTW great article and comments about JK Rowling. The intolerance of personal opinion and individuality is an interesting dilemma these days. We are all one, and so therefore we are not unique individuals?

[Sena]

As far as the media is concerned these days, the only things happening in the world is a deadly virus (that isn't very deadly in reality)

Yes, not so deadly. I am pretty sure I've had it (in London, England), but I didn't have the test.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

When I think of what it will be like when we truly achieve a brotherhood of man, this is what I think it will probably look like. Nobody will make an issue of skin color, or hair color, or eye color because none of these things will matter. Nobody will make an issue of sexual orientation or sexual preference because it just won't matter. Age discrimination won't exist because it just won't matter. All people will all be accepted and honored for who they are and each and every single person will be honored for being the uniquely original individual that they are.




In several places Seth points out that it is good that we each help each other out when and where we can.

If there is a person who is starving to death, for example, this doesn't mean that it is OK not to do something to help them out just because, they created their own reality. Truly, if we are all one, then when we help out the starving person, we are helping our selves.

I think that we have to be careful not to allow ourselves to become too jaded by what's going on in the world today. Yes, it is true that the news media does seem to be playing up all the negative stories. However, this doesn't mean that we need not concern ourselves with any of these issues, especially if we are all one.

Seth tells us that this stage is a learning ground. That we are here to learn to create responsibly. He also tells us that when we finally get the message, when we finally choose love and creativity over destruction and hatred, the reincarnational cycle is over. This, I think must be at least some sort of a goal, for many of us.




When a Mr. Smith, was born, the name on his birth certificate was "Robert" Smith. This person, Robert Smith, hates to be called "Robert", for his own personal reasons. Because of this, he goes by the name "Bob", which he is comfortable with. As a result of this, his friends and family, all call him Bob. It is also well known by many, that he hates to be called "Robert".

Now, it could be argued that he is, in fact, Robert Smith because this is the name on his birth certificate, and yet, a person who knew this man and cared about him, wouldn't call him "Robert", out of a sense of compassion for his feelings.



There are some people who are born with very dark skin color. Many of these people are offended by a name that starts with "N", a name that was used, in the past, by others, to identify them.  These people do not like to be called by this name.

Now, it could be argued that this name may have derived from the Spanish world for "black" and the color black is a reasonable description of their skin color. However, a person who knew any of these people and cared about them, wouldn't call them this name, out of a sense of compassion for their feelings.



There are some people who are born into their bodies and don't feel right within themselves in regards to their sexual orientation. Many of these people have a hard time with this issue. Especially with the fact that so many others for various religious or cultural reasons don't believe that their issues are valid.

Now, it could be argued that we are all born as either males or females since the majority us are. However, anyone who knew any of these people and cared about them, wouldn't force them to deny their feeling and insist that they are wrong, out of a sense of compassion for their feelings.



It is OK, to have compassion for other people's feelings. In a society where people truly achieved a brotherhood of man, I think that this would be a common practice, if it was even needed at all.



-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

As an addendum to my last post here, Reply #6, in Seth Speaks, Ch21, S586, Seth talks about what life will look like in the future, after the second coming of Christ.

I think that what I'm talking about here is basically what he is referring to when, in Session 586, he says:


The results will be a different kind of existence. Many of your problems now result from spiritual ignorance. No man will look down upon an individual from another race when he himself recognizes that his own existence includes such membership also.

(10:55.) No sex will be considered better than the other, or any role in society, when each individual is aware of his own or her own experience at many levels of society and in many roles. An open-ended consciousness will feel its connections with all other living beings. (Pause.) The continuity of consciousness will become apparent. As a result of all this the social and governmental structures will change, for they are based upon your current beliefs.



-jbseth

[Deb]

What a thought-provoking topic this has been for me! I've been busy with other things all day, but my mind kept flipping around from why there isn't more compassion and tolerance in the world, our current events, the root of the problem, what the solution could be... and how to reconcile all of this. I've re-written this post several times, am now trying to whittle it down to something manageable.

I think intolerance (to me, the opposite of compassion) of diversity in whatever form comes from fear and insecurity. It seems to me that some people cling to their beliefs like their entire identity depends on them, and feel threatened by anything that does not support them. I can't help but think that people that feel secure in their self-identity would be more open to at least considering alternate views. A way for people to rationalize the abuse of those who don't fit in with their ideas of what's right, is to dehumanize them. Scary stuff.

Growing up during a time period of the re-introduction of diversity (60s and 70s, weren't they amazing?), and attending public schools, I was fortunate to be exposed to and befriend people who were outside my parents' ideas of what was the "right" way to be. I don't think I'm unusual in my need that, when meeting someone new, I look for commonalities rather than focus on differences. I think generally commonalities run deep, and the differences are on the surface.

How can we (humanity), as a whole, overcome this dehumanizing and fear? As every individual is at a different level in their spiritual development, is there a way to get everyone on board at the same time?

If humans could combat this, what am amazing place the world would be! People working together, cooperatively, to improve living conditions for all living things; no competing for dominance; amazing cooperative breakthroughs; no wars to annihilate people that don't agree with specific religions or governments, or to grab land or resources. It's hard for me to imagine, as we have all of these problems because this is a learning place and we have hurdles to jump.

Once we've overcome all of this, it will probably mean the end of our reincarnational civilization and we will go the way of the Lumanians and others civilizations before ours. I suppose we need to be patient with ourselves and others.

[pyromancy]

I can't help but be skeptical we'll ever achieve perfect peace and harmony.

Guys and their relationships and jealously among people make it very difficult. It's like trying to imagine everyone in the world getting along sharing one gigantic house because hey, everyone perfected their attitude. Everyone can hold hands now.


Ha.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

When I started this post on compassion the other day, I had some thoughts in mind, from some comments that I recall reading from Seth. These thoughts went along the lines, of love, compassion and brotherhood.

I recently discovered some comments made by Seth that relate to these ideas very well; especially the last 3 paragraphs. This information comes from UR1, Section 3, S697.


UR1, Section 3, S697:

[...15 paragraphs ...]

Consciousness, by its nature, continually expands. The nature of consciousness as you understand it as a species will, in one way or another, lead you beyond your limited ideas of reality, for your experience will set challenges that cannot be solved within your current framework. Those problems set by one level of consciousness will automatically cause breakthroughs into other areas of conscious activity, where solutions can be found.

Many of your global dilemmas seem so desperate only because in those areas you have gone as far as you can go — without going further. The problems act as stimuli in that regard. This doesn't mean that you have to experience disasters. They are not preordained. It does mean that you have chosen certain experiences, but that these will automatically lead to further creative development if you allow them to. The idealization is one of brotherhood, in terms of your species. Biologically, in your terms, such "brotherhood" operates instinctively in the cooperation of the body's cells, as they function together to form the private corporal structure. At your viewpoint you lose appreciation for the great individuality of each cell. You take it for granted that because the cells work so well together, they have no private uniqueness.

In other terms, however — social terms — you have yet to achieve the same kind of spiritual brotherhood possessed by your cells; and so you do not understand that the experience of your world is intimately connected with your own private experience. If you burn your finger it hurts immediately. Your body instantly begins a cooperative venture, in which adjustments are made so that the wound begins to heal. If a portion of the race is hurt it may take a while before "you" feel the pain, but the entire unconscious mechanism of the species will try to heal the wound. Consciously you can facilitate that development, and admit your brotherhood with all other living beings. The healing will take place far quicker if you do. A biological brotherhood exists, an inner empathy on cellular levels, connecting all individuals of the species with one another. This is the result of a biological idealization. It exists in all species, and connects all species.

The race suffers when any of its members die of starvation or disease, even as a whole plant suffers if a group of its leaves are "unhappy." In the same way all members of the species are benefited by the happiness, health, and fulfillment of any of those individuals who compose it. Man can be aware of the vast medium of probabilities in which he exists, and therefore consciously choose those best suited to those idealizations that point toward his greatest fulfillment. One part of the species cannot grow or develop at the expense of the other portions for very long.


- jbseth

[T.M.]

Hi All,

I'm really starting to wonder if we are in some A.I. computer generated simulated reality. There's many different rooms in this mansion. Much like an Xbox, and everyone picks the game(s) they want to play.

Some games are geared towards winning. Some to failure. Always winning or being successful, or losing, is a very one sided p.o.v.
I think for development our Entities want to experience it all.

I think perhaps this little reality cube is the "whatever you make of it" experience. Not everyone collectively is going to experience the same thing. Some will have wild success, others, will go down in flames, and of course, there's everything in between.

Compassion on a collective level? I don't think that's in this game cube. Just my thoughts

[pyromancy]

I've read comments indicating Seth thought an AI being truly conscious was not a possibility but I haven't read the details yet. That isn't to say a person couldn't be plugged in to one, it just means an AI would not have an individual self.

[jbseth]

Hi T.M.,

Seth does say something similar to your simulated reality idea in TES9, S446.   In this session he says the following:

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

- jbseth

[pyromancy]

I wonder what Seth would think of a hunter. I ask because he says to not hurt another, but I wonder what the topic of things like pests would make him say. He said vegetarian diets would be ideal but animals and plants consume humans when we return to the earth. That isn't violent but I get what he means.

A greater example in the Florida Everglades there are invasions Burmese pythons eating everything even the alligators. People hunt them, there is a bounty and extermination program. According to Seth I wonder if he would consider it wrong to kill those pythons and use their pelts. They will eventually threaten humans after they eat all the wildlife, and they will invade northward to other states.

Crocodiles in some countries are another example of this they are known to attack villages.

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Jbseth,

" To some extent you are, comparatively speaking, in a soundproof and isolated room. "

Thanks!  That's the quote and material I was thinking about.  I just wasn't sure where it was. I think Lynda Madden Dohl also has that in one of her books. It goes something to the effect  of.... If we knew how safe we were/are, we would be very angry.  Lol

I guess in hindsight looking back on some of the fear beliefs we hold at times.

[Sena]

I'm really starting to wonder if we are in some A.I. computer generated simulated reality.

T.M., this is certainly one way of interpreting the Seth teachings. Seth stated in many places that our physical reality is a camouflage reality:

• "The physical body is a camouflage pattern operating in a larger camouflage pattern. But the physical body and all camouflage patterns, looked at in another manner, are also transformers of the vital inner stuff of the universe, where this vitality is then enabled to operate under new and various conditions."

• "[...] Any material that is important for the body's contact with outer camouflage patterns is given to the brain. [...] Portions of it do deal with camouflage patterns, with the personal past of the present personality, with racial camouflage memories; and the greater portion belongs to the inner world, and as data comes into it from the inner world, so can it reach far into the inner world itself."

• "[...] It only seems strange because you are so familiar with your precious camouflage patterns. Time and space, dear friends, are both camouflage patterns, therefore the fact that the inner senses can conquer time and space is not, after all, so surprising. [...] The camouflage is simply not present."

—TES1 Session 20 January 29, 1964

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Sena,

Thanks for the excerpts from TES1. I have it. Need to re-read it   I've never thought about Seth's teachings as related to living in a simulation. I see now the potential correlation.  One of my YouTube channels suggested that time and space are generated by A.I.'s. I've been pondering and wondering about that for a long while now. 

The other day another one of my channels posted an interview with Rizwan Virk,
The Simulation Hypothesis: MIT Scientist Shows How We Could Be Playing One Right Now


Before he went to MIT he worked on for video games and development. After listening to the interview it really got me to thinking about the theory of living in a SIM a little more seriously. Rizwan also touched on the, to me enigma of what Phillip K Rick was trying to express. Some of the folks I listen to on YouTube are saying A.I. is very ancient and has been around a long long time.

[Sena]

The other day another one of my channels posted an interview with Rizwan Virk,

@T.M.
Thanks for recommending Rizwan Virk. I have downloaded two of his books: "The Simulation Hypothesis" and "Treasure Hunt: Follow Your Inner Clues to Find True Success". Plese check the personal message I have sent you.
This is a quote from the first book:
"What happens after death (and before birth) are part and parcel of the nature of most
religions. In the Eastern traditions, this involves reincarnation and the idea of karma, where
consequences of our actions carry over from one life to another. Again, if we think of the physical
world as a shared video game, then this explanation is a much better way of describing how it
works than most theories modern science has thus far put forth. In fact, video games even use
terminology such as multiple lives, avatars, quests which map very well to the twin tenets of karma
and reincarnation in the Eastern traditions.
It's not just the Eastern traditions, though, that the simulation hypothesis can explain. In the
Western traditions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity), there are equally relevant descriptions of the
world as being a "temporary world," where our acts are watched and recorded by no less than
angels being overseen by an all-powerful God. These traditions use the metaphors and language of
their time, which has caused a great schism between science and religion, because the language of
religion is not something that modern science can get behind. Once we look at these traditions
through the lens of the simulation hypothesis, though, we have a description of the universe that
makes more sense: beings that are not in the rendered world but are watching and influencing us is a
good description of what these religions call angels and demons. Recordings of deeds, evaluation of
scores, even replaying of specific events are common in video games. In video games, we have
autonomous processes (sometimes called daemons) whose job it is to watch us and AI that is
available to respond to requests that players make to the unseen server.
More than one scientist who was a self-described atheist has considered the simulation
hypothesis and come to the realization that beings which are "outside the simulation" might seem
like gods to us, even if they aren't technically so.
Not only does the simulation hypothesis provide a rational, science-based explanation for
the things that religious traditions have been telling us for years, it also provides explanations for
phenomena that have been unexplained by modern science. These include near-death experiences
(NDEs), out-of-body experiences (OBEs), UFOs, synchronicity, and déjà vu, among others."

If we translate the highlighted passages into Sethian terminology, we could replace "angels and demons" with Sethian "Entities". The implication is that we physical beings are within the simulation (Framework 1), while our entities are watching us from outside the simulation (Framework 2)

[jbseth]

Hi T. M., Hi Sena, Hi All,

In "Seth Speaks", Seth uses the "play" analogy, to describe reality. He also uses the word "camouflage" which I think is a lot like the idea of simulations and AI.


I've often thought that reality seems to be something like what the "Sims" experience in the program "Sim City", or perhaps something like what occurs in the movie, "The Matrix".

My only question about A.I. is this, if this is just an AI reality / universe, then who created the AI? 



SS, Ch4, S522:

[... 16 paragraphs ...]

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.

Within him there are methods of perception that allow him to see through the camouflage settings, to see beyond the stage. He uses these inner senses constantly, though the actor part of himself is so intent upon the play that this escapes him. In a large manner, the physical senses actually form the physical reality they seem to only perceive. They are themselves part of the camouflage, but they are like lenses over your natural inner perceptions that force you to "see" an available field of activity as physical matter; and so they can be relied upon only to tell you what is happening in a superficial manner. You can tell the position of the other actors for example, or time by clock, but these physical senses will not tell you that time is itself a camouflage, or that consciousness forms the other actors, or that realities that you cannot see exist over and beyond the physical matter that is so apparent.


- jbseth

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Jbseth,

That is a good question! I wonder if the ancient A.I around earth was created by the Lumaniens. Though I've come across a gal on YouTube that is saying A.I. isn't that unusual and exists on many inhabited world's. Kinda like the episode on the original star trek,
Shore Leave. 

I suspect there are ancient A.I's as well as one that mankind is currently creating.

[Sena]

My only question about A.I. is this, if this is just an AI reality / universe, then who created the AI? 

jbseth, I would say that all entities working together created together created the simulation.

[Sena]

I think it was very important for me to let go of beliefs that life might be a simulation or a purgatory or a school or whatever I read in a book or article and to have actual adventures in consciousness, having the inner knowledge arise spontaneously. For when it came up, I just knew, and I could see it. Reality and its fabric is illuminated. The light is turned on.

And it's hyper-real. Not more illusory. Or like a simulation. Real.

spicemerchant, then are you disagreeing with Seth's statement that physical reality is camouflage reality?

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Jbseth,

I read your message a little too quickly. I don't think we are in a " just A.I. created reality"
I think, it's just more of an adjunct, running certain aspects. I'm sure Spirit essence triumphs over all else.
Then again,  I don't have a substantial understanding of all aspects of A.I. either.  It's still a pretty new to me subject.

[jbseth]

Quote from: jbseth

My only question about A.I. is this, if this is just an AI reality / universe, then who created the AI? 

jbseth, I would say that all entities working together created together created the simulation.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Hey Sena, great reply and I completely agree. I think that a group of entities did create this reality.

-jbseth

                     
   

[pyromancy]

That's what Sikhs think and it is what their circular bangle named the chakkar means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanda_(Sikh_symbol)

[Deb]

I'm really starting to wonder if we are in some A.I. computer generated simulated reality.

Well it certainly seems like that, in a Matrixy or Sims sort of way. In video games, you make choices that can improve your status or get you killed. And then you can come back (reincarnation), and having learned from your mistakes, gain more ground. Life imitating art, or the opposite? I actually think The Sims game and the Matrix movies helped me understand the Seth concepts more easily. And when first reading Seth, it helped me recognize and understand things in the Matrix that were originally lost on me.

And so, what if we are just Sims characters, or what if the Sims characters are conscious and don't know what they are? That's a creepy thing to think about. The original Bladerunner also comes to mind, where one of the characters in the movie, a romantic interest of Harrison Ford (Deckard), is a bio-robot (a replicant named Rachel) who had no idea she was not a human... all the little details and memories of her life had been instead programmed into her mind. Then there's the scene where replicant Roy, intending to kill Deckard, saves his life instead. Realizing he was at the end of his planned obsolescence, Roy gives departing clues about the shortcomings of life as a non-human. All of his moments lost in time, like tears in rain. To me, that meant no tribal memory.

It's been a very long time since I'd seen that movie, it's probably time to watch it again from a Seth perspective. Lots of repeated symbolism there. And oh, the white dove...

For some reason I'm not concerned about this reality as camouflage, or that I experience it only subjectively. It's real enough for me to work with. I understand Seth's explanations enough to know that I have the option and ability to rewrite the game if it doesn't suit me.

There is no place in the universe that looks exactly like this.

That is something that never fails to thrill me when I create things on "this" level. When I create a painting or design something for a client or myself... I get the greatest thrill from the fact that it is one of a kind on not only the planet, but in all of reality. I suppose I should start seeing myself as that as well.

I form this room, but I didn't create this house. I didn't manifest the idea of it, save for how I've arranged the things I've brought into it. I didn't create my wife, though I form my experience of her.

Interesting you feel you didn't create your house. I feel on some level I did create my house, even though I'm not an architect by any means. When I wanted to move (20+ years ago), I had in mind what I wanted, from the location to what I wanted from a house and yard. I was very happy with my previous house, with some layout changes desired, but didn't like the location. The desired new location was not available, and then it suddenly was, to the surprise to all involved. This floor plan is very similar to my previous house, but with the layout changes I wanted (no custom building involved). As a side-note, in one of my lucid dreams a few years ago I was standing at the base of a skyscraper in some unknown city and I marveled at how I could have created the magnificent onyx and glass very modern building I was viewing. Being aware it was a dream, I asked myself how I could created such a masterpiece since I know nothing about architecture.

As far as AI, I don't have a feel for that. I think I'd have to consider the source, ATI as AI, which doesn't make sense to me. Right now my only understanding of AI is computer-based intelligence, where a computer can be programmed to "learn" based on choices such as in a flow chart format. No real intelligence (or consciousness) involved, just math and probabilities.

Is it possible that this universe, and all of its physics, has always been here--it never started and will never end? Is it also possible that it came into being spontaneously, a la one of the main pillars of the fabric of existence?

Great questions, and I have no idea. I know what Seth said, but due to my contract amnesia or just plain ignorance, that sort of concept is beyond my comprehension.

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Deb,

I like the Matrix till it got turned into a religion. And everyone started us the red/blue pill analogy.

I'm kind of wondering about the  " Life imitating art, or the opposite? " with the simulation hypothesis too. It amazes me how well some things weave together. I think all good art is a good imitation of life.

I don't think ATI is A.I.  I think A.I. was definitely created by sentient beings. Though the thought of time and space being generated, or regulated by some form of A.I. I find very intriguing right now.  The people I listen to about it on YouTube and Rizwan all stress that ultimately it's Consciousness that's in the driver's seat.

I'm finding this A.I. and Simulation Hypothesis very useful in answering some questions I've long had for awhile now.  Then again nothing is set in stone. I find some outlooks are useful for awhile, only to give way to other frameworks later.

I think Phillip K Dick had definitely tapped into some kind of communication with other intelligences.

[Sena]

So, what do you think, Sena? Look around you, immerse yourself within and without---is it unreal? Is your experience just a simulation? Something camouflaging actual reality? Is it an illusion? A lie?

spicemerchant, Seth is not saying that physical reality is unreal. If you play a computer game, the game is real, but a different order of reality from physical reality. Seth mentions camouflage reality many many times, so if you reject that you are rejecting the basis of Seth's teachings. Creating your own reality is only possible because of the nature of camouflage reality, which can be influenced by thoughts. The nuts-and-bolts reality of physicists cannot be influenced by thought.
Seth does not mention the computer simulation analogy because computers were not that advanced in the seventies and early eighties. "Virtual reality" had been invented, but was not widely known.

[pyromancy]

I'm almost done with Nature of Personal Reality and here's what I think.

Seth thinks a truly artificial intelligence could not exist because no consciousness is independent of all the consciousness that surrounds it.

There are individuals in a sense but they aren't ever truly cut off from the consciousness that exists in the atoms/molecules of everything that exists.

[Sena]

Is it possible that this universe, and all of its physics, has always been here--it never started and will never end? Is it also possible that it came into being spontaneously, a la one of the main pillars of the fabric of existence?

spicemerchant, I don't think the universe has always existed, and I don't think that is Seth's teaching. Consciousness (All That Is) has always existed.

[pyromancy]

I think it always has and always will.

Seth goes over this topic and how the beginning and end of life the way we imagine it is not valid. We witness the patterns of life/death but instead of understanding all energy is recycled we assume there is a beginning and end to being just by witnessing the surface appearance of things. There was an example Seth described of time being more like a whirlwind in the way that the past and future is felt simultaneous and therefore does not have a linear direction. There is a center, along with past and future melding.

On the topic of determining what is "real" and what isn't:

Ideas and dreams no matter how fantastical or thin shape your other ideas, which in turn influences your physical actions which shapes the material world around you. Imagination is as real as a volcano exploding the effects are just at different levels of energy.

Semantics come in to play at this point because what "real" means to one person isn't the same as what the definition of real is to another. I think people confuse the concept of "real" and "solid" with each other at times. Your ideas are real, but are they solid? If I dream about dragons and storms they are real in my mind but they aren't solid the way I imagine them. "Out of touch with reality" or "unrealistic nonsense" are just descriptions used by people to describe lack of validity in terms of how physically solid that flawed ideas and actions are.

[pyromancy]

You don't have to agree with everything Seth says.

I will say for sure that I find it frankly annoying how often the word "belief" is used in the readings..because I don't believe in anything religiously or scientifically. I think things are true it doesn't mean I am a believer because I acknowledge I could be wrong about anything. Yet I'm told constantly my [nonexistent] beliefs are constructing my reality.

It makes me think two things, one that on some occasions is it mentioned that strongly held ideas are beliefs which is a bit different from a religious zealot with beliefs about god. Two that physical reality may also be formed by people's delusional attitudes. Them thinking things are real like demons or the validity of some religious figure/spirit makes them real? Enough people have a belief that it overpowers the logically oriented person who doesn't think that these things are legitimate. Maybe I'm wrong but it's the only way I can think of reality being solid for a person without any beliefs or real attachments.

As for compassion it's stated that helping someone develop their own understanding of their soul is compassion. This isn't the same thing as volunteering at a soup kitchen and giving free food to alcoholics 6 days a week.

Similar ideas are in Hinduism. Compassion is aiding a persons spiritual development not just giving out loaves of broad. In todays world it can be difficult because I know your neighbors don't give a flying blimp about Seth. Yet here I am trying to help people orient themselves.

Edit: It's worth noting that something I experienced when listening to some of the readings for the first time is that it did feel like I already had many of these ideas. You manifest what you focus your attention on. Both in your physical actions and on a psychic level. As in if you prepare your breakfast and focus your attention on your bread and jam you manifest what you focused your attention on. If you think of some horrible thing constantly and it puts you in a bad mood, you manifested it. It works for good and bad things, with the people you encounter and places you spend time in.

One of the guys on Kevin Moore's youtube channel was interviewed and said that many of the people in the class or readings the books felt that they were being reminded of something.

It reminds me of one day being in a supermarket and thinking for like 10 minutes how I had been the quiet one in the class when I was younger and as I headed to the front register I saw Katy Perry's face on a magazine "YOU HAVE A VOICE. USE IT!" it stuck with me. Manifestation, precognition things like that and synchronicity are related to what you occupy your mind with and it deeply intrigues people when patterns of some don't seem to correspond to just one linear direction like a train with them in the front seat as conductor. It would be confusing for the conductor to think of something like a flock of white birds and then suddenly he sees one, then thinking of deer for 10 minutes and they show up on a prairie. It can only happen so many times before a person starts to question their sense of time.

[Sena]

You've created a very religious statement rife with beliefs. It's akin to "If you don't believe everything in the Bible, then you reject the heart of Christ's teachings, the very heart of Christianity."  You call my words a "rejection" of Sethianity, of the Seth Bible.

spicemerchant, it appears from this post that your religion is scientism:

"Individuals associated with New Atheism have garnered the scientism label from both religious and non-religious scholars." Theologian John Haught argued that philosopher Daniel Dennett and other New Atheists subscribe to a belief system of scientific naturalism, which holds the central dogma that "only nature, including humans and our creations, is real: that God does not exist; and that science alone can give us complete and reliable knowledge of reality.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[Sena]

I actually experience no separation between myself and experience, and can actually see the uniqueness in everything, how everything is one yet each individual is themselves.

spicemerchant, that is obvious. There is obviously no separation between an individual and his or her experience. Is that all you have gathered from the Seth books? Can you quote one paragraph from the Seth books that you agree with?

[jbseth]

You don't have to agree with everything Seth says.

Hi Pyromancy, Hi All,

I've learned that my inner self, my higher self, by God self, communicates with me both "internally" and "externally". It seems to me that some people (and I'm not referring to you here) don't seem to recognize the existence of this "external" communication.


I find that when I'm open to it, I occasionally get nudges and intuitional insights to either do something or not do something and for the most part, from what I can tell, these often appear to work for my benefit.  This is my inner self, communicating with me "internally".


Sometimes when I try to do something, every time I try to do it, my attempt is completely blocked. On occasion, after having tried to do this thing several times, I become aware of what's going on here.  My inner self is communicating with me "externally". It's blocking me from doing this thing, for some reason. Usually when I recognize this, I usually stop trying to do this thing and just let it go.


In the late 1970's I discovered the book, "Seth Speaks" in a bookstore. Upon reading it, I discovered that it contained a lot of fascinating ideas that I had never considered. I remember thinking, "Wow, is it really possible that we create our reality?" That sure didn't seem, to me, to be the way that life works.

When I discovered this book in this bookstore, I believe that my inner self was once again communicating with me. It led me to this bookstore so that I could find this book and be exposed to these ideas.


You are absolutely correct, I don't have to agree with everything that Seth says. 

It's just that after having read many of Seth's books over the years and after actually trying out creating my reality and changing my beliefs, I found much truth in them.

Thus, for me, I find that, for the most part, I do agree with a lot of what Seth says and I don't seem to get any opposition about this from my inner self.


-jbseth

[Sena]

You said that my post was scientism and I asked you what parts of it were, and you're only responding with a challenge as to whether or not I'm a believer in Seth.

spicemerchant, I am not asking you to be a believer in Seth or anything else. I ask you to quote one single paragraph in any of the Seth books that you do not completely reject.

[jbseth]

Though I've read all the books, I will rarely quote Seth, as I'm not interested in a Bible study experience, or in being a quoter.

Hi SPiceMerchant42, Hi Pyromancy, Hi All,

You are both fairly new here to this forum and so you may not understand why, some of us here often quote Seth.

In years past, there have been some issues here with people who claim that Seth either said something that he didn't, or didn't say something that he did. In some cases, some of these claims were extremely out of alignment with what Seth actually said or didn't say.

When asked to back up these claims with an actual comment, quote or paragraph from Seth, many of these people, not surprisingly, couldn't do so.



One solution to this problem was to back up any comments made about Seth with a quote or comment from Seth.

Along with this, there are people who come to this forum all the time. Some of them are fairly new to the Seth information and some of them come here to learn more about what Seth had to say.

As a result of this, some of us here often quote Seth, not because we feel a need to do this, like in a Bible study experience or because we're "quoters" or because we're some sort of Seth religious cult. We typically do this because we're trying to be helpful to those people who visit this site and are new to the Seth information and because it minimizes some of these false claims.


-jbseth

[Deb]

I surely hope this doesn't make me a heretic here, and that because I don't tow the line in blindly believing Seth's words, but see them as mostly story at this point, that I'm not seen as an outsider who needs to be vanquished from the ongoing discussions.

Let me just jump in and make some comments.

First off, this is a discussion forum and not a new type of bible study or cult. I think we could all say that the Seth materials make a lot of sense and resonate with us, or as Barrie(?) said, it feels familiar as if we're being reminded of things we've learned and forgotten. We discuss the concepts because sometimes they are not clear and simple and we also interpret them in our own ways. I've learned a lot from other people's perspectives. There are sometimes discrepancies in the materials, and some distortions. Some things makes sense to us, others don't. We are all free to pick and choose what we accept or reject. If we all accepted every word in the Seth books as gospel, that would mean we have traded one dogma for another. There would be little left to discuss or learn if we already know it "all." I personally feel a lot of the concepts in the materials area foreign and hard to accept as absolute fact, since I have not been able to consciously, during this life, experience things like simultaneous time, OBEs, Framework 2, the constant recreation of my physical form, the continuation of my consciousness after death, reincarnation, entities, etc. But I am willing to consider the possibilities. It makes a whole lot more sense than what I was force-fed as a kid with the Catholic religion.

I've seen some people in Seth Facebook groups, some of them original Seth class attendees, who do believe everything in the books without question, and also feel they are THE expert. Recently someone said they were Seth II. With each expert interpreting things in their own way and insisting it alone is correct, egos take control and things can get pretty ugly. It's happened here as well, and usually ends up with one or both members quitting the forum.

Finally, it's nice to have Seth quotes in discussions, because... this is as Seth forum and we are often discussing the books. Sometimes a quote is taken out of context, or a person has paraphrased a concept with a totally different interpretation than what others would get from reading the quote. No one's going to get fired for not quoting, it's just a courtesy to help others read more if they are curious. Certainly not necessary or even possible when discussing personal experiences.

When asked to back up these claims with an actual comment, quote or paragraph from Seth, many of these people, not surprisingly, couldn't do so.

One solution to this problem was to back up any comments made about Seth with a quote or comment from Seth.

Thanks jbseth, well said! The search engine has been invaluable for this, I'm eternally grateful to Christopher G for creating it.

[pyromancy]

Christ as a personality is actually a relatively important part of the Seth material when it comes to describing individual historical personalities. I kind of dislike that. It seems you can't find a mystical philosophy that makes no mention of Jeebus because he will be addressed because of how many people find power in that figure.

But I accept that in order to see anything realistically, I have to set aside my biases/preferences. So I remain open minded. Being and the nature of experience is being.

Anything trying to describe or alter your experience with mental projections really is just a preference, which gives your ego its own personal slant on interpreting or modifying what your reality is.

People don't like to hear this because their ego is immediately offended or feels endangered "What? How can you say that? I NEED to have preferences for what my reality is. "I need to eat to not starve, I need to go to my home and sleep/tend to family/friends. Without my preferences I can't live!"

This doesn't change the fact that being is being. I don't see how a person can disagree with that statement. If someone discovered truth that they didn't like they'd just try to modify it without caring if it made them live in a lie. Most people wouldn't care.

Truth seekers are a small percentage of people.

I understand the part about quotes but I listened to a lot of ideas on audio on the Internet so don't remember which exact section they were in.

There's no need to get offended. A Bible study is not something I'd ever attend. Trying to tell Christians what the meaning of Leviathan and Nehushtan really on multiple occasions resulted in them getting very upset over me bringing the topic up and flatly denying any validity in what I was trying to share.

Leviathan the 7 headed sea dragon comes from the word "lotan" which means "coiled one" which I interpret as the coiled serpent. Nehushtan the idol of Moses looks identical to the Caduceus of Greco-Egyptian mythology and on the Egyptian side has the symbol of the Mehen which is yet another coiled serpent. All of these symbols indicate a coiled serpent with 7 levels which is exactly what Hinduism describes as kundalini but Christians can't even offer their own interpretation of what the symbols mean when I bring it up. They get frustrated or talk about how it just automatically doesn't mean what I'm suggesting but they draw a blank when I ask them to explain the contradiction of Moses erecting a brass serpent idol while the first book talks about or is interpreted as how "evil" the serpent of forbidden knowledge is. By that logic was Moses worshipping the devil? Hey any Christians care to explain? I guess not.

[Deb]

Those words I wrote about this being a cult and all that was in response to Sena's reply

Thanks, I realize you were responding to Sena, I just wanted to clarify that we're not a bunch of people blindly accepting the Seth materials as gospel (to use another religious term, lol). BTW Sena is a he, not a she. I've never gotten the impression from him that he's made Seth into a religion (my words, not yours). I just think he wants to know where you're coming from, but I'll leave that to him. You'll soon get to know him better, he's a sharp guy.

This forum has been great for learning how to view things differently due to everyone's individuality, and not just the Seth material. As I mentioned, I've had many ah-hah experiences here and I love that.

Christ as a personality is actually a relatively important part of the Seth material when it comes to describing individual historical personalities. I kind of dislike that. It seems you can't find a mystical philosophy that makes no mention of Jeebus because he will be addressed because of how many people find power in that figure.

I think most of the Christ stuff was requested by Jane and Rob. More so Rob, as Jane had a lot of hangups about religion and really didn't want to hear things that she felt conflicted with her early training. Rob's background was less religious than Jane's. She must have had a lot of internal conflicts over the materials and at times blocked it. It's not my favorite part of the books either, I'd heard enough of it when I was a kid. The thing that I sort of liked about the Christ material was that it contradicted what I was taught. Surprisingly, being told about original sin, a vengeful god, unbaptized dead babies being forever stuck in purgatory, judgment at the pearly gates, and burning in hell for not accepting Jesus as my personal savior did not make me want to jump on board. Imagine that. 

I understand the part about quotes but I listened to a lot of ideas on audio on the Internet so don't remember which exact section they were in.

Lately I've been listening to the books on audio myself, but if I hear something that I want to share here I just go to the search engine findingseth.com. I will usually remember one or two unique words related to what I want to quote and will find what I'm looking for. Not always. But since I'm the admin I figure I should make the effort. Quotes are appreciated but not required.

BTW I'm thinking of starting a new topic on camouflage. It's not the best word for what Seth was trying to explain. The Truman Show comes to mind for some reason. Maybe we can come up with something better than camouflage reality. We may have to invent a word or two. 

[jbseth]

think most of the Christ stuff was requested by Jane and Rob.

Hi Deb,

Actually I think that your statement here may be off somewhat.  From what I've read, Seth offered Jane and Rob, the "Christ" book on several different occasions, and as I recall, Jane, in particular kept putting it off.

Jane and Rob did have some hang ups with some of Seth's information. While Jane had a hang up, at least, at first, with reincarnation, she definitely seemed to have a very big issue with the "Christ" book.
Along with this, they also apparently had some issues with some other concepts, like "Atlantis" as I mentioned in another post here on that topic.


If people can get beyond their religious issues with the Christ story, and take a look at some of what Seth had to say here, some of it is really pretty interesting.

Seth says that the Christ story was like a big morality play, where the apostles were all fragment personalities; each one representing some aspect of the outer ego, such as Thomas, the doubter, and Judas the betrayer. These men represented those aspects of ourselves who cause us to doubt and betray ourselves. Then along with this, Christ symbolically represented our inner self.

To be honest, I seriously doubt that I ever would have looked at this story, in just this way, if Seth didn't mention it.

By the way, for any of you who are new here and might be wondering about me, given what I've just written here, I'm definitely not a "Christian".   

-jbseth








-jbseth

[Deb]

Actually I think that your statement here may be off somewhat.  From what I've read, Seth offered Jane and Rob, the "Christ" book on several different occasions, and as I recall, Jane, in particular kept putting it off.

Maybe so, I was just stating my impression. Yes, Seth did offer a Christ book, from what I gather a lot of people are disappointed that never came through. Well, actually, according to Ron Card, it was written and published in another probable reality. Maybe it was one of the books in Jane's "library."

Rich Kendall's new book has some unpublished stuff about Christ and Atlantis, although at this point I'm not entirely certain it has really not been published. While Rich was one of the original students, I'm not sure that he read all the books that were published after Jane died. But it does seem to me that Rob was more curious than Jane regarding both topics.

I just got some good news (like within the last 30 minutes) about the publishing of Rich's last book, so I'm pretty psyched right now.

I agree that the information on Jesus The Christ (has anyone else here read The Death and life of Harry The Goth?) was somewhat interesting, for me because I'm always searching for the truth ala X Files, "The truth is out there."

[pyromancy]

There are interpretations I've read about the mustard seed being the root chakra.

The lords prayer and 7 churches of Asia being the energy centers

I might have linked this before but this recent video has a lot of interesting details.

The comments about the third church offered in this video were particularly interesting because in Sahaja Yoga and the Law of One the third "density" or "nabhi chakra" have much to do with free will and there are comments in this video describing that particular church as the one where man was given a sword with which he could make his own decisions with.

[jbseth]

Anything mentioned by the Seth entity in the books that is not in my experience, or haven't experienced through my own investigation and adventures, is just a story to me and possibly not true. Just because I've found and find and experience certain things in the writings to be true, even before I came to the books, doesn't mean it's all true.

Hi SpiceMerchant42,

I like your posts, they seem to be well thought out. I also enjoy your stories like the way that you were able to telepathically pick up on where your friends girlfriend lived and then drive them to her home. Well very close anyway.  I also really enjoy your sense of play and sense of humor, such as your explanation of what SECOB stands for (Simultaneous Ephiphanic Change Of Belief). That was great. 


I have some thoughts about some comments you made.

First, in your comment above, I could counter that, just because you've found and find and experience certain things in the writings to be true, doesn't necessarily mean that none of it is true either. Some of it may, in fact, be true. 

Even those things that we can't yet experience, such as what actually happens to us after we die.


Secondly, regarding camouflage, I've had the following thoughts. From my reading of the Seth information, particularly TES3, where Seth talks about various realities, (psychological reality, electric reality, etc.) I would say that the reality of All That Is, lies behind everything else and All That Is, is the ultimate reality behind everything.

Also regarding camouflage, when I sleep at night and I dream, in the mist of my dream, I have no idea, where my physical body is located. Where would I find it? Does it even exist? I don't know.

However, when I wake up in the morning, I have the same question about my dream. Where is it. Does it even exist?

For me, this is the basis for my belief in the concept of camouflage. There seems to be something hidden from us such that in our waking life, we don't seem to know where our dream reality exists. Likewise, when we dream, we typically don't seem to know where our physical body exists.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

I just got some good news (like within the last 30 minutes) about the publishing of Rich's last book, so I'm pretty psyched right now.

Hi Deb,
Thanks for your post.

You'll let us know, WHEN (not if; I'm visualizing a copy of it, in the room where I keep my Seth books) Rich's book gets published, right.

Thanks again.

-jbseth

[Sena]

BTW I'm thinking of starting a new topic on camouflage. It's not the best word for what Seth was trying to explain. The Truman Show comes to mind for some reason. Maybe we can come up with something better than camouf centurlage reality. We may have to invent a word or two. 

Deb, a thread on camouflage would certainly be useful. It seems to have been one of Seth's favorite words, starting from session 19 in 1964 and continuing on to a deleted session in 1981. As you say, "camouflage" may not have been the best word for what Seth was trying to describe. To me, camouflage brings up a picture of soldiers wearing brown clothes with leaves on them when operating in the jungle. I speculate that if Seth had been channelled in the 21st century he would have used terms like "computer simulation" or "virtual reality" as analogies, but that is only speculation.

[pyromancy]

Camouflage to me means veiled in a misleading way in the way Seth uses it. Does this sound accurate?

[Sena]

Camouflage to me means veiled in a misleading way in the way Seth uses it. Does this sound accurate?

pyromancy, my understaynding of Seth's use of the word camouflage goes like this:
"Physical reality is NOT the hard nuts-and-bolts kind of reality that classical physics (as opposed to quantum physics) describes. That kind of reality cannot explain consciousness. In Seth's view consciousness is primary, and therefore if we change our beliefs, we can change our reality."

[pyromancy]

I think a simple concept few people recognize is that everything vibrates. Atomic vibration is a thing. Nothing is actually ever at a standstill. Intuitively, people use the word "vibe" but rarely recognize everything and anything is a vibration of some sort.

[Deb]

You'll let us know, WHEN (not if; I'm visualizing a copy of it, in the room where I keep my Seth books) Rich's book gets published, right.

YES, thank you. We're just working out some copyright stuff with Laurel, but she's been very gracious about that so I'm counting on "full speed ahead." The book is pretty much done, I just need to get the final OK and then upload it to Amazon Kindle Publishing.

By the way there is a new topic started by Sena entitled "The Simulated Universe," which is a great place to carry on our conversation about camouflage reality. It's here:

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=2047

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Just for clarification, I thought that I should explain and back up my comments regarding why it is that I believe that Jane and Rob "didn't" request the Christ information. This has a lot to do with Jane's reaction to "The Christ Book" that Seth offered to give them.

First of all, I discovered that it appears that Seth first mentioned "The Christ Book" to Jane and Rob, during a private session in September, 1973. However, when Rob and Jane were in the process of putting together their book NOPR, Rob placed notes about this "Christ Book" comment from this private session in Sept 1973 into S674, of NOPR, which is dated July 1973. So apparently Jane and Rob were playing with time, here, in a different sort of way. 

Anyway, from what I can tell, Seth may have only offered them "The Christ Book", just this one time, but apparently it was an open invitation; they could have it "any time".

From the various books, dates and sessions given below, we can see that Jane and Rob weren't ready to embark on "The Christ Book" in 1973 and Jane was still not ready for it on July 28, 1975.

While Rob seemed interested in it in Jan 9, 1978, in March 22, 1978, Jane was having ambiguous feelings about it.  Then, in August 27, 1979, we find that Jane was uneasy about the Christ information, even in trance and Seth said that even then, he still needed to "sneak" this Christ related material in, now and then.

All along the way from the time that Seth first mentioned the Christ Book, in Sept 1973, right up until August 1979, Jane was having issues with any information that Seth presented having to do with Christ. Given this then and the fact that "The Christ Book" was never published, I don't think that Jane ever "requested" any of the Christ information. Instead I think that it was Seth, who snuck it in from time to time, when he could.





TPS2, Deleted Session, September 10, 1973
*(Just before the session Jane told me that Seth could give us what she called *The Christ Book at any time. In last Monday's deleted session Seth had included a section on Jerusalem, which I've included in the records as the 678th session for September 3, 1973. Seth told us we could have more on Jerusalem and related events whenever we want it, or have the time, so presumably the Christ Book idea stems from that. A good title.)

[...]

Now that is enough for this evening, but highly important. You can have more at our next session. You can have more material on Jerusalem or Christ now, or when you want it. You can have the Christ book when you want it. But the same applies for any other material you want from me.



NOPR, Ch 21, S674, July 2, 1973
(In a private session on September 3, Seth discussed some of the reasons behind Jerusalem's unceasing fascination for certain segments of mankind. These included probabilities, geography, and unusual interactions involving the past, present and future. Some aspects of the Christ phenomenon were also explained. Then in the next session — which concerned other subjects — Seth unexpectedly added this aside: "You can have more material on Jerusalem or Christ now, or when you want it. You can have the Christ Book when you want it ..." But we weren't ready to embark upon such an endeavor at this time.



NotP, Ch1, S752, July 28, 1975
("This," she said promptly, meaning the session. "But you have nine months to get used to having a baby. And I'm not ready for either of the books Seth has mentioned doing — the Christ book, or the one he talked about last month, on cultural reality. So what could a new one possibly be about?"



TPS4, Deleted Session, January 9, 1978
(10:53 PM. See Chapter 21 of Seth Speaks for more on the Christ entity. According to history, Christ was crucified, and the other two members of Seth's Christ entity, John the Baptist and St. Paul, were beheaded. Seth hasn't mentioned India before in connection with any of the three, so that information would be new. It would be interesting to get more data on the whole Christ question. As I told Jane after the session, Seth's Christ material tonight reminded me of the idea of the Christ book, which Seth mentioned in Personal Reality.)



NOME, Ch 4, S829, March 22, 1978
And finally, here's an answer to a number of inquiries from readers. The 647th session for Chapter 21 of Personal Reality was held on July 2, 1973, and in it I quoted a remark Seth made to me the following September: "You can have more material on Jerusalem or Christ now, or when you want it. You can have The Christ Book when you want it...."

So far, we've done nothing about producing The Christ Book, except to talk about it once in a while. "Well, it's true that I have ambiguous feelings about doing a book on religion," Jane said as we discussed this note. "But for all that, if Seth started dictating it tomorrow, I'd do it. Many issues would be involved — maybe even current national events. I guess I think Seth would know the best time for such a book to be done and publicly introduced.



"The God of Jane", Ch 20, S876, August 27, 1979
In this book, Chapter 20 is titled, "Seth Comments on Christianity's Early Days, the Crucifixion, and Other Allied Subjects, that I Sometimes Wish He'd Forget"

In this specific session, session 876, Seth talks extensively about the events that occurred during the time of Christ. At the end of this session, Seth says:

"That is enough. I sneak this [kind of material] in now and then. Do you have any questions?"

Then following this, we find the following, written in the book:

(10:21 P.M. "I still have to watch it," Jane said "Even in trance, I could feel part of me uneasy because Seth was discussing Christ." She grinned. "Maybe we got the material tonight because I was so floppy," she said. I do take responsibility for what Seth says , though."



-jbseth