"The soul is not an immortalized ego"

[Sena]

It is interesting to contrast the Catholic definition of soul with Seth's idea of the soul.

The Catholic definition first:

"The question of the reality of the soul and its distinction from the body is among the most important problems of philosophy, for with it is bound up the doctrine of a future life. Various theories as to the nature of the soul have claimed to be reconcilable with the tenet of immortality, but it is a sure instinct that leads us to suspect every attack on the substantiality or spirituality of the soul as an assault on the belief in existence after death. The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The term "mind" usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while "soul" denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well. That our vital activities proceed from a principle capable of subsisting in itself, is the thesis of the substantiality of the soul: that this principle is not itself composite, extended, corporeal, or essentially and intrinsically dependent on the body, is the doctrine of spirituality. If there be a life after death, clearly the agent or subject of our vital activities must be capable of an existence separate from the body."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

Seth's idea of the soul:

"Many individuals imagine the soul to be an immortalized ego, forgetting that the ego as you know it is only a small portion of the self; so this section of the personality is simply projected onward, ad infinitum, so to speak. Because the dimensions of your reality are so little understood, your concepts are bound to be limited. In considering "immortality," mankind seems to hope for further egotistical development, and yet he objects to the idea that such development might involve change. He says through his religions that he has a soul indeed, without even asking what a soul is, and often he seems to regard it, again, as an object in his possession. Now personality, even as you know it, constantly changes, and not always in ways that are anticipated — most often, in fact, in unpredictable ways. You insist upon focusing your attention upon the similarities that are woven through your own behavior; and upon these you build a theory that the self follows a pattern that you, instead, have transposed upon it. And the transposed pattern prevents you from seeing the self as it really is. Therefore, you also project this distorted viewpoint upon your conception of the reality of the soul. You think of the soul, therefore, in the light of erroneous conceptions that you hold regarding even the nature of your mortal selves." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/aYg4UN5

Seth goes on to say that another word for soul is entity:

"I tell you this, and at the same time remind you that your present personality is never lost. Now another word for the soul is entity. You see it is not a simple matter of giving you a definition of a soul or entity, for even to have a glimpse in logical terms you would have to understand it in spiritual, psychic, and electromagnetic terms, and understand the basic nature of consciousness and action as well. But you can intuitively discover the nature of the soul or entity, and in many ways intuitive knowledge is superior to any other kind." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

[Bora137]

Hi Sena

This is such an interesting area. If my present personality is never lost, much like Frank Watts personality rose up now and then from within the 'Seth entity' much to his annoyance I seem to remember, does that mean our various personalities spawned through our various incarnations are to us what we are to our oversouls? I would really like to think this is the case. How exciting it is to think we all might have a myriad of personalities to draw on.

[Sena]

How exciting it is to think we all might have a myriad of personalities to draw on.

Hi Bora, what I like about this topic is that according to Seth the soul is quite mysterious. I remind myself of this when I encounter irksome events in my life.

[Sena]

Another Seth quote on the soul:

"Now in terms of psychology as you understand it, the soul could be considered as a prime identity that is in itself a gestalt of many other individual consciousnesses — an unlimited self that is yet able to express itself in many ways and forms and yet maintain its own identity, its own "I am-ness," even while it is aware that its I am-ness may be part of another I am-ness. Now I am sure it may seem inconceivable to you, but the fact is that this I am-ness is retained even though it may, figuratively speaking, now merge with and travel through other such energy fields. There is, in other words, a give and take between souls or entities, and no end of possibilities, both of development and expansion. Again, the soul is not a closed system. It is only because your present existence is so highly focused in one narrow area that you put such stern limits upon your definitions and the self, and then project these upon your concepts of the soul. You worry for your physical identity and limit the extent of your perceptions for fear you cannot handle more and retain your selfhood." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)", Chapter 6, by Jane Roberts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/1I3KqG1

I don't fully understand this paragraph, but it does reveal the complexity of Seth's teaching on the soul.

[Tob]

Another Seth quote on the soul:

"Now in terms of psychology as you understand it, the soul could be considered as a prime identity that is in itself a gestalt of many other individual consciousnesses — an unlimited self that is yet able to express itself in many ways and forms and yet maintain its own identity, its own "I am-ness," even while it is aware that its I am-ness may be part of another I am-ness. Now I am sure it may seem inconceivable to you, but the fact is that this I am-ness is retained even though it may, figuratively speaking, now merge with and travel through other such energy fields. There is, in other words, a give and take between souls or entities, and no end of possibilities, both of development and expansion. Again, the soul is not a closed system. It is only because your present existence is so highly focused in one narrow area that you put such stern limits upon your definitions and the self, and then project these upon your concepts of the soul. You worry for your physical identity and limit the extent of your perceptions for fear you cannot handle more and retain your selfhood." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)", Chapter 6, by Jane Roberts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/1I3KqG1

I don't fully understand this paragraph, but it does reveal the complexity of Seth's teaching on the soul.

Robert Butts did produce a drawing on the interconnectedness and the intersection of gestalt pyramids. (Jane Roberts: 'Dialogues....', page 32)

Seth: 'I am afraid I have taken you too deeply into these matters too early. There are no simple answers. There is complexity and growth and the dynamics of vitality always; and these find new forms, new diversions and new creations constantly. Your own animals and all the various species that you know belong to a general grouping, with man presently holding forth.

("Could our plane vanish?")

Do you mean in an instant?

("Well, could it just finish its business and then be done as a plane? You said once that planes come and go; at least some of them.")

Oh yes, this happens in countless cases, and could happen to your plane. It would in no way affect other planes. The vitality on your plane and on or in all planes in your grouping displays itself in terms of selfconsciousness to some degree, as you understand it. On many other planes the vitality expresses itself in ways incomprehensible to you and at this point to me. The personality-entity concept involves only one main type process involving many planes and plane groups. But this is not all that is or exists. It is extremely possible that many in the personality-existence grouping have been involved within other completely different plane groupings in some inconceivable past' (session 29).
--------------

Creation is nested. There is a reality where Napoleon managed to conquer Europe (Seth). The version we know of may be a part of it, i.e.: part of a larger gestalt activity, which we do not understand. According to Seth he has his own limits in understanding reality (see above). The drawing of Robert Butts may help in this context. I tried to upload it but it looks that it is no more possible to attach files. Relatively early Seth is talking about huge pyramid gestalts which are too big to materialize in our reality (TES1). The drawing is related to that aspect (according to a footnote in UR). Regarding the 'I-am-ness' which is part of another 'I-am-ness' the drawing may help to get an idea. Creation is nested. Another core message of the Seth teachings. We are structurally unable to get the whole picture. At least for the moment.