Our Entities

[Deb]

I've been wanting to start a topic on entities for a while. Not long ago a Facebook group put this up, and I thought I'd start off with it. Hopefully it's accurate. I thought it was beautiful, and takes the sting out of our entities giving us the gift of war. My first impulse was to search for more quotes, but I think this is a nice place to start and I didn't want to dilute it.

Your entities are not distant. Your entities are not super-beings, holding you at one time like a pebble in their hands, and then all of a sudden they toss you out to the centuries and say "Good luck, friend". You are a living portion of your entity, alive in space and time, connected with your entity.

Your breath flows through you constantly, and you take it for granted. Your entity is as much a part of you as your breath. Your entity is your support. You cannot hold your breath in your hand, and you cannot take your entity out of your pocket and say "Ha, ha, Genie". But you know your entity with the portion of yourself that does not necessarily deal with words. When you are creatively at your best, when you are being at your finest, you are, in those terms, without words, in greater familiarity with your entity. Your entity is within you. And, therefore, it is within you that you must look, but not look so much as feel.

For the feeling of your entity is unique with each of you. Do not think in terms of a person. Think in terms of a feeling and that will lead you to an inspirational understanding of what or who your entity is. For, in larger terms, you are more than a who, and therefore, so is your entity.

As Ruburt is discovering in his "Aspects", you think in terms of personhood, one person, and so many of you, despite yourself, when you think of the entity, think in terms of a super person, a superman - rarely do you think of a superwoman! It has to do with your question about entity names and your interpretation. Free yourself of that concept. Think of a being that is free of your ideas of a person - of a psychological reality, free of what you think of as personhood; free therefore of experience in one place and one time; free of one set of characteristics that it calls its own. But, do not think so much as feel. Feel around within yourselves for emotions that seem larger than your personhood. And that will give you a feeling for your entity.

Seth Audio Collection tape/CD#5 - Selection 5 - Excerpt A - By Jane Roberts © L. Davies-Butts

[Sena]

I've been wanting to start a topic on entities for a while.

Deb, thanks for starting this topic.
Entity = Supersoul, according to Ian Lawton. Lawton quotes freely from Seth/Jane Roberts.

http://www.ianlawton.com/ssindex.html

"A new consciousness is emerging on planet earth.
Huge swathes of the human population are waking up
to the incredible truth of who and what we really are.
And now the next pieces of the jigsaw reveal
a power in each of us way beyond our wildest imaginings...
the power of our SUPERSOUL.

In the latter decades of the twentieth century a degree of spiritual consensus emerged. It centred around the idea that we all have a soul that survives our physical death; that lives many lives to gain a rich variety of experience; and that will at some point have overcome the multitude of challenges the human experience has to offer, and move on to grow in other ways in other realms. Some have taken a different tack and focussed on ideas of illusion and addiction, but arguably their influence has remained more on the fringe.

This worldview has served us well as the tide of the new consciousness has gathered momentum. But what if it only scratches the surface of an underlying reality that is far more complex and intriguing?

The clues have been available, scattered here and there, for decades. In Robert Monroe's pioneering journeys out of the body, when he met with supreme intelligences that he eventually realised were only 'other aspects of himself'; in Jane Roberts' seminal Seth channelings, which revealed that he and she were part of the same 'oversoul'."

"In the introduction to the subsequent Nature of Personal Reality Roberts was even more specific:[26] 'Seth's books may be the product of another dimensional aspect of my own consciousness not focused in this reality.' Seth generally described himself as an 'energy personality essence no longer focused in physical form', indeed a teacher who'd had many incarnations on earth. He referred to Roberts and her husband Robert Butts, who acted as the shorthand recorder of all the sessions, as Ruburt and Joseph respectively – these apparently being the names of their 'entire personalities' or 'whole selves', or in our terms presumably their individual souls that had already lived many lives. As for his description of his relationship to them, I had to search long and hard to find the small handful of explicit confirmations of their connection, but this was well worth the effort." (from "Supersoul: A Radical Worldview for a New Consciousness (Supersoul) [Kindle Edition]" by Ian Lawton)

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

Lawton also recognizes that the idea of supersoul (entity) is relevant to the topics of reincarnation and parallel selves:

"To explore this further, we saw in chapter 3 that Seth would say 'each of us' has many 'reincarnational' selves, but his context, like mine, appears to be each of us as a multidimensional supersoul matrix.[179] The other concept relevant here is that of 'parallel' selves in other earth-type worlds, such as those experienced by Graham Dack and Robert Monroe at the end of chapter 5. Each of these researchers regarded these parallel entities as closely identifiable with themselves as life personalities rather than just as other aspects of their supersoul, although they were clearly individual consciousnesses with their own separate identities. But the context of their existence was very different to a conventional reincarnational one." (from "Supersoul: A Radical Worldview for a New Consciousness (Supersoul) [Kindle Edition]" by Ian Lawton)

It was through Lawton's book that I became aware of Seth and Jane Roberts.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Thanks for starting this topic. I think that entities is a great one. 

In regards to the topic of "entities", two separate thoughts come to mind for me.


First, sometimes I find it easier to think about what an entity is, when I think about what Jane wrote in her Oversoul Seven books. In the book, "The Education of Oversoul Seven", we are told that Oversoul Seven was Ma-ah, many thousands of years ago. Oversoul Seven was also Joseph in the 16th or 17th century. Oversoul Seven was also Lydia in the 20th century and finally Oversoul Seven was Proteus in the 22nd or 23rd Century.

Oversoul Seven was these four humans and these four humans were Oversoul Seven. Sometimes it's easy to forget that while our entity is us, "we" are also our entity.



Second, in many other occult related writings, the word "entity" means something very different than how Seth defined or described this term. Seth defined the entity as a positive "oversoul" type of being. In some other occult related writings, the word entity stands for some sort of spirit, sometimes related to a possession type of experience, and often this spirit is definitely not a "positive" spirit.


-jbseth

[Deb]

Entity = Supersoul, according to Ian Lawton. Lawton quotes freely from Seth/Jane Roberts.

Thank you for sharing the Ian Lawton quotes, I'd not heard of him before. His "further reading" page looks like a goldmine.

Over the most recent decades I've been seeing more books, both fiction and non, that carry similar concepts of the Seth materials such as oversouls, reincarnation, the survival of individual consciousnesses, simultaneous time, probable selves, inner selves vs ego, etc.

So, either "a new consciousness is emerging on the planet earth," or Jane, Seth and Rob left a deep impression on humanity that continues to grow to this day.

Several years ago I had decided to treat myself to one of The Monroe Institute's retreats when I reached my 60th birthday, but I ended up doing something entirely different that was no less amazing. I'll be turning 65 in January and have been thinking of finally doing that TMI retreat as a special gift to myself. Right now it depends more on what's going on with covid. It would certainly be less strenuous than galloping across Cornish moors and wondering about Heathcliff, but no less spiritual.

Second, in many other occult related writings, the word "entity" means something very different than how Seth defined or described this term.

Yep, I totally get that, thinking about all the horror movies about possession. It's still hard for me to fully grasp the concept of entities/oversouls. I understand how Seth explained it, and I think the quote I started off with probably gave me a better understanding. "Feeling" (from the quote) makes sense to me. There are some things I can better experience and understand by feeling, rather than relying on the intellect. It's a different kind of understanding.

[Sena]

It would certainly be less strenuous than galloping across the Cornish moors and wondering about Heathcliff, but no less spiritual.

Deb, I see you are a  fan of Wuthering Heights! I read that a long time ago.

[Michael Sternbach]

Hi Deb

This:

"Feel around within yourselves for emotions that seem larger than your personhood. And that will give you a feeling for your entity."

is brilliant!

Thanks for sharing. 

[Michael Sternbach]

At the time I was first reading the Seth books (I was just around 20), I thought of my entity as some kind of expanded version of myself. And while in retrospect (three decades later now) I would still say there is some truth to that, I seem to have expanded my view of that expansion. 

More to the point, I guess I have deepened my appreciation of Seth's respective insistence that there are no closed systems. So while I (just like he does too!) continue to uphold the uniqueness of the individual in all its  glory (well, potentially, at least), I also believe that, at the end of the day, this very individual blends in with the larger universe - or what has been called All That Is, for that matter.

It's actually as though the more universal I become, the more I awaken to my innermost individuality, my truest self... I admit it may be a bit hard to fathom. I sense there is some kind of a paradox there. But aren't the most universal spirits at once the most unmistakably original ones? And let's take a moment to reflect on the meaning of that term "original" here...

I do see Seth himself as an excellent example for that.

If you have any thoughts on what I shared, I would be happy to hear them.