Supersoul by Ian Lawton

[Sena]

Ian Lawton's book does acknowledge its debt to Jane Robert's Seth books. In fact it is by reading Lawton that I was directed to the Seth books. This brief video summary is, I think, consistent with the Seth teachings:



Lawton's "supersoul" seems to be the equivalent of the "entity" described by Seth.

[Sena]

As I wrote in my previous post, I came to Jane Roberts and Seth via Ian Lawton's book. Lawton refers to Seth in 48 places. Here is a quote:

"Jane Roberts first made contact with the entity who called himself Seth in 1963, and together they produced what's commonly regarded as some of the finest channelled material ever gifted to humanity. Perhaps the most refreshing aspect, unlike predecessors such as Blavatsky and Cayce, is the clarity of his words and grammar – despite the hugely complex concepts he was sometimes attempting to put across. But just who was he? Roberts herself pondered this question deeply. Like (Dion) Fortune she was open to him being an independent entity and to him being a part of her own psyche, but unlike her she favoured the interpretation that he was both at the same time. She assembled her first book, The Seth Material, by selecting from various readings. But what many regard as his masterwork, Seth Speaks, was channelled verbatim in the first two years of the 1970s. In the introduction this was her take on the material:

The whole creative venture may be the initiation of a personality, Seth, who writes books. Seth may be as much of a creation as his book is. If so, this is an excellent instance of multidimensional art, done at such a rich level of unconsciousness that the 'artist' is unaware of her own work and as much intrigued by it as anyone else... You can say that Seth is a dramatisation of the unconscious or an independent personality. Personally, I don't see why the statements have to be contradictory. Seth may be a dramatisation playing a very real role – explaining his greater reality in the only terms we can understand. This is my opinion at this time. (Quote from Jane's book)

In the introduction to the subsequent Nature of Personal Reality Roberts was even more specific: 'Seth's books may be the product of another dimensional aspect of my own consciousness not focused in this reality.'" (from "Supersoul: A Radical Worldview for a New Consciousness (Supersoul) [Kindle Edition]" by Ian Lawton)

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

One of the most interesting aspects of Seth's teaching is that on the "Entity", but it seems to me that the word "entity" is not a very good one to name the concept. Ian Lawton's word for the entity is "Supersoul", and I think that is a better word.

[jbseth]

One of the most interesting aspects of Seth's teaching is that on the "Entity", but it seems to me that the word "entity" is not a very good one to name the concept. Ian Lawton's word for the entity is "Supersoul", and I think that is a better word.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

It seems to me that in several places across all of Seth's and Jane's writings, Seth mentioned several words that he did not like being used, for specific concepts. Such as the word "spirit" for example. Seth did not like being referred to as a spirit. Often for the various connotations that some people have when using or thinking about the word.


SS, Ch 1, S511:

Now: You have heard of ghost hunters. I can quite literally be called a ghost writer, though I do not approve of the term "ghost." It is true that I am usually not seen in physical terms. I do not like the word "spirit," either; and yet if your definition of that word implies the idea of a personality without a physical body, then I would have to agree that the description fits me.





Seth seems to have preferred the word "entity" for his definition of his concept of what I think you are calling a supersoul. Oddly enough, in my own personal readings and experience, I've occasionally heard the word "entity", being used in the context of an "evil" spirit.  That certainly doesn't fit what Seth was referring to.

I personally don't agree with Seth here. It seems to me that whatever word is being used, for whatever concept, it's likely to have some different sort of connotation, for some people. Ultimately, it seems to me that regardless of the word being used, the best thing to do is to define the concept that's being used with it, so that we are all on the same page with the word / concept relationship. 

From my personal readings over the years, my understanding of how the word "Supersoul" has been used by others, is most likely different than that of either Ian Lawton's or yours and as a result of this, I'm not really sure why you think the word Supersoul is a "better" word than entity.

Please don't misunderstand me here, I'm not saying or trying to say that you're wrong about this. All I'm trying to say is that I don't understand why you think its a better word.


Sometimes, I think that it would have been better if Seth would have used a 'nonsensical' word like "zat" for his concept of entity. Then perhaps all the misunderstanding in regards to the other connotations with related words like entity, soul, oversoul, and supersoul, for example, wouldn't have been an issue.


- jbseth

[Sena]

I'm not really sure why you think the word Supersoul is a "better" word than entity.

jbseth, I can see your point of view. Perhaps supersoul is not the ideal term.
This is a dictionary definition of entity:
"something that exists apart from other things, having its own independent existence".

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/entity

Examples of entities are:

"The museums work closely together, but are separate legal entities."
"He regarded the north of the country as a separate cultural entity."

An example from another dictionary:

"Both public and private universities and colleges in the U.S. largely have tax-exempt status as an educational institution or through being an entity of the state government, according to the Association of American Universities."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entity#examples

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Thanks.  So maybe the word "entity" wasn't such a bad choice after all.


For people who experience OBE's, I think that this discussion about who or what this "self" is, that leaves the body is actually rather complex. I also suspect that many people opt to simplify it, for various reasons.

Some people claim that its the soul and to me, this seems like perhaps an oversimplification of the issue. Furthermore, to me, it seems like its an oversimplification that may not be valid.


Here's my questions about it.  Is this "self" that leaves the body during an OBE:

the same self that we experience when we dream; the dream self?

the same as the self that people experience when they have an NDE?

the same as the self that people experience after they die?

Are these all the same self or are some or all of these selves different from each other?

Are any of these selves, our "soul" or is our "soul" something different?

And then this could go on into a discussion of what is a "soul"?  What is an "Oversoul"?  And what is a "Supersoul"?



I'm not expecting anyone here to answer these questions. I'm just trying to point out the issues that I see that make this discussion complex and how, I  believe, that some people just seem to oversimplify it.


- jbseth