Seth on the creation of our world

[Sena]

In this extract from Seth Speaks, Seth seems to be saying that Seth Two and Seth may have been "the creators of our world":

"We are the voices who speak without tongues of our own. We are sources of that energy from which you come. We are creators, yet we have also been created. We seeded your universe as you seed other realities. We do not exist in your historical terms, nor have we known physical existence. Our joy created the exaltation from which your world comes. Our existence is such that communication must be made by others to you. Verbal symbols have no meaning for us. Our experience is not translatable. We hope our intent is. In the vast infinite scope of consciousness, all is possible. There is meaning in each thought. We perceive your thoughts as lights. They form patterns. (Each syllable was so carefully and separately pronounced.) Because of the difficulties of communication, it is nearly impossible for us to explain our reality. Know only that we exist. We send immeasurable vitality to you, and support all of those structures of consciousness with which you are familiar. You are never alone. (Pause.) We have always sent emissaries to you who understand your needs. Though you do not know us, we cherish you. Seth is a point in my reference, in our reference. He is an ancient portion of us. (Pause.) We are separate but united. (Long pause.) Always the spirit forms the flesh." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/28iM8X0

[Deb]

The first time I read that quote, years ago, it sort of creeped me out because it was not Seth talking in first person like I was used to. It's kind of eerie. "We are the voices who speak without tongues of our own." It sounded to me like some of those other channelers who say they are channeling a collective group of consciousness from another solar system. But the rest of it is very comforting, and now I have a different take on who "we" is.

Do you suppose that the "we" is the collective consciousness dreamed into reality by ATI, of which we are all still a part of, as described in The Seth Material, Chapter 18? It's that whole explanation of how ATI became aware of itself, and of a need to create and express, but without the means of expression. The agony, and what Seth II called the birth throes of all that is.

"[ATI] then purposely gave them more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not yet separate from itself. It gave consciousness and imagination to personalities while they still were but within Its dreams. They also yearned to be actual.

"Potential individuals, in your terms, had consciousness before the beginning or any beginning as you know it, then. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within Itself for the means.

"In Its massive imagination, It understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was necessary if these probabilities were to be given birth. All That Is saw, then, an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within It until It found the means."

[skip]

"The pressure came from two sources: from the conscious but still probable individual selves who found themselves alive in a God's dream, and from the God who yearned to release them."

In that case, it seems to me that we all, including Seth and Seth II, and ATI, created and continue to create our world and universe.

I've had the following quote sitting around for a while, one of my favorites, wanting to find a good place to share it. It's time!

"Now. (Long pause, one of many.) The universe will begin yesterday. The universe began tomorrow. Both of these statements are quite meaningless. The tenses are wrong, and perhaps your time sense is completely outraged. Yet the statement: "The universe began in some distant past," is, in basic terms, just as meaningless.

—DEaVF1 Chapter 1: Session 882, September 26, 1979

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi Deb,

It is my understanding, which could be wrong, that there are many personalities like me and this includes people like you, Sena, and you, Deb.  In addition to this, these personalities have entities, like the relationship between Jane and Seth and there are also a lot of entities.

Furthermore, there are also many entities that have the relationship like Seth and Seth II and there are a lot of entities like Seth II.

I suspect that this keeps going on, all the way back to All That Is and when I think about this intuitively, I sense that there are very many levels (think infinite levels) between the entities like Seth II and All That Is.

When Seth II says, "We seeded your universe as you seed other realities.", I think he means that he, and other entities like him, entities at his level, created our universe.


- jbseth

[Sena]

Do you suppose that the "we" is the collective consciousness dreamed into reality by ATI, of which we are all still a part of, as described in The Seth Material, Chapter 18?

Deb, yes, I think that is what Seth meant:

"Simply stated, this is one of the thumbnail passages that explain Seth's concept of God: "He is not human in your terms, though he passed through human stages; and here the Buddhist myth comes closest to approximating reality. He is not one individual, but an energy gestalt. "If you remember what I said about the way in which the universe expands, that it has nothing to do with space, then you may perhaps dimly perceive the existence of a psychic pyramid of interrelated, ever-expanding consciousness that creates, simultaneously and instantaneously, universes and individuals that are given—through the gifts of personal perspective—duration, psychic comprehension, intelligence, and eternal validity. "This absolute, ever-expanding, instantaneous psychic gestalt, which you may call God if you prefer, is so secure in its existence that it can constantly break itself down and rebuild itself." (from "The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/crX7Qs6

I wonder which Buddhist myth Seth was referring to? I am interested in the "Trikaya" myth (the three bodies of the Buddha). It  may be this myth which was distorted into the Christian myth of the Holy Trinity. We need to remember that a myth is NOT literally true, while Christian theologians twist themselves into knots trying to prove that the Holy Trinity is literally true.

The doctrine says that a Buddha has three kāyas or bodies:

The Dharmakāya, Buddha nature, law and order, or Truth body which embodies the very principle of enlightenment and knows no limits or boundaries;
The Saṃbhogakāya, Buddha fields or body of mutual enjoyment which is a body of bliss or clear light manifestation;
The Nirmāṇakāya, Buddha incarnation, Emanation, or created body which manifests in time and space.

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

In Sethian terms, the "three" would be Seth Two, Seth, and physical reality.

I don't think the Armenian spiritual teacher, G.I.Gurdjieff has been referred to on this forum. Gurdjieff spoke of "the Law of Three":

https://www.ouspenskytoday.org/wp/about-teaching-today/the-law-of-three/

[jbseth]

In Sethian terms, the "three" would be Seth Two, Seth, and physical reality.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I've always thought that there may very well be something, to this concept of "three".

However, I'd say that from my standpoint, Seth's concept of three would be: 1) the physical body, 2) the outer self / ego / conscious mind and 3) the inner ego / inner self.

I suspect that there are probably many other ways that this concept of "three" could also be explained in terms of Seth's ideas, such as, for example: 1) All That Is, 2) the Entity and 3) the physical human being or perhaps even 1) present self, 2) reincarnational self and 3) probable self.


- jblair

[Sena]

However, I'd say that from my standpoint, Seth's concept of three would be: 1) the physical body, 2) the outer self / ego / conscious mind and 3) the inner ego / inner self.

jbseth, there is a saying, "As above, so below." According to Gurdjieff, the Law of Three applies to a number of situations.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Yes, there are others who also say something similar. Neale Donald Walsch, in his book "Conversation with God, Book 1, Chapter 4" also talks about this trinity concept. In this book, the being that he communicates with, God, says the following.

" 3. You are three beings in one. You can call these three aspects of being if you want: Father, Son, Holy Ghost; mind body and spirit; superconscious, consciousness, subconscious.

4. Creation is a process that proceeds from these three parts of your body. Put another way, you create at all three levels. The tools of creation are: thought, word and deed."

-jbseth

[jbseth]

I don't think the Armenian spiritual teacher, G.I.Gurdjieff has been referred to on this forum. Gurdjieff spoke of "the Law of Three":

Hi Sena, Hi All,

In regards to the "three" there is also the Hindu take on it, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. I believe that these basically stand for the creator, the preserver and the destroyer aspects of God.

I'm curious about G.I.Gurdjieff?  I have heard of him and I have read about him, but only very little.

What do you know and think about his teachings?

I just checked the Seth search engine and it doesn't appear that Seth ever said anything about him.

-jbseth

[Sena]

I'm curious about G.I.Gurdjieff?  I have heard of him and I have read about him, but only very little.

What do you know and think about his teachings?

jbseth, Gurdjieff is sometimes referred to as a "crazy guru". In fact, he pretended to be crazy to put off people he thought were not genuinely seeking the truth. The best introduction to his thought is a book by his disciple Ouspensky, "In search of the miraculous". The book can be downloaded free here:

https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-AHobOEFHR4B4PBSm/In+Search+of+the+Miraculous_djvu.txt

This is what the book says about the Law of Three:

"This is the 'Law of Three' or the law of the three principles or the three forces. It
consists of the fact that every phenomenon, on whatever scale and in whatever world
it may take place, from molecular to cosmic phenomena, is the result of the
combination or the meeting of three different and opposing forces. Contemporary
thought realizes the existence of two forces and the necessity of these two forces for
the production of a phenomenon: force and resistance, positive and negative
magnetism, positive and negative electricity, male and female cells, and so on. But it
does not observe even these two forces always and everywhere. No question has ever
been raised as to the third, or if it has been raised it has scarcely been heard.

"According to real, exact knowledge, one force, or two forces, can never produce a
phenomenon. The presence of a third force is necessary, for it is only with the help of
a third force that the first two can produce what may be called a phenomenon, no
matter in what sphere."