Different angles on the Seth material

[Sena]

I am happy with Deb's announcement that the forum will continue. One member had posted that "the age of internet forums is over". I definitely disagree with that. When we are all able to communicate telepathically that might be true, but we have not reached that stage yet.

If this forum is to thrive, we need to think of ways to make the forum interesting. Posting lengthy quotes from the Seth books with minimal comments is really boring. i think what we need is to look at the Seth material from different angles.

Two new members have given us good examples of this. @KylePierce  has posted about the astrological angle. @Zy, if I recall correctly, from the angle of hypnotherapy.

Leidl mentioned Rupert Spira recently, from the Advaita angle. I don't quite agree with that, but I hope @leidl will tell us more and try to make it relevant to the Seth teachings.

[Deb]

I like the idea of less lengthy quotes. Sometimes I appreciate them, usually ones from books I've not read yet. I've bought a lot of Seth books because of some juicy quotes here. Also, often I will do a Save As on a topic so that I can read it offline, and most lengthy quotes are in Spoilers which can only be opened when someone is logged into the forum. On one hand it's good to use the Spoilers for something that may violate copyrights, but it also becomes an inconvenience in the case of my Saved topics.

I do appreciate it when someone cites where certain Seth materials that are being discussed can be found, because often I will open a book to read more. But I'd take a rousing in-depth discussion over a multitude of long quotes any day. That's why Lynda Dahl is very good at communicating the concepts within the materials, she paraphrases them in terms most can understand.

Anyway, we certainly can mix things up a bit in our discussions, and I think we've been doing that by bringing in other books, authors, ideas, even physics. The astrology aspect is new for me. I actually had a chart done once, and was pretty impressed with what I was told, but do not have much knowledge about it in general. Hypnotherapy has always intrigued me, but I've not had any luck being hypnotized. Past life regression is really interesting too. I guess from a Seth standpoint it wouldn't be "past lives" but tapping into our other incarnations. No less amazing to me. Michael Newton wrote about a counterpart that a client was able to connect with under hypnosis.

[Sena]

Hypnotherapy has always intrigued me, but I've not had any luck being hypnotized.

Deb, same here. I paid a hypnotist only once, but I did not "go under".

"Hypnotizability is not substantially correlated with most other individual differences in ability or personality, such as intelligence or adjustment, conformity, persuasibility, or response to other forms of social influence. However, in the early 1960s, a number of investigators found that hypnotizability was correlated with subjects' tendency to have hypnosis-like experiences outside of formal hypnotic settings, such as imaginative involvement in reading or drama. The most reliable correlate of hypnotizability is 'absorption,' or the tendency to have subjective experiences characterized by the full engagement of attention (narrowed or expanded), and blurred boundaries between self and object."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/hypnotic-susceptibility

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Sena

"perhaps the time of internet forums have come and gone?!"

If you are going to qoute me, please get it correctly. Thank you

[usmaak]

Hypnotherapy has always intrigued me, but I've not had any luck being hypnotized.

I've actually been trying to learn self-hypnosis.  I've been reading the intros to tons of books on Amazon, trying to pick just the right one.  I don't want to waste money on books that end up not being right for me.  I spent around $100 on ACIM books before realizing that there is absolutely no way that I can make it through that course.  And they're Kindle books, so it's not like I can resell them or give them away.

[Sena]

"perhaps the time of internet forums have come and gone?!"

If you are going to qoute me, please get it correctly. Thank you

O.k., T.M. Sorry about the misquote.

[Deb]

"The most reliable correlate of hypnotizability is 'absorption,' or the tendency to have subjective experiences characterized by the full engagement of attention (narrowed or expanded), and blurred boundaries between self and object."

Interesting. I have experienced what I feel is self-hypnosis, almost a trance, when I zone out while concentrating on something, or painting something intricate such as a botanical illustration, or absorbing a good book or movie. If I'm really working on a challenging technical problem, I get so focused that it's hard for me to snap out it of sometimes and I lose track of time. Some day I'll try hypnosis again, but it's expensive and then frustrating when I have no results. I wonder if daydreaming is also a form of self-hypnosis? I used to get in trouble in school when I was a kid for daydreaming during boring classes. I wouldn't hear a thing the teacher was saying, I'd be off somewhere else in my mind.

[LarryH]

I used to get in trouble in school when I was a kid for daydreaming during boring classes. I wouldn't hear a thing the teacher was saying, I'd be off somewhere else in my mind.

Decades ago, I either read or heard in person Joseph Chilton Pierce (author of Crack in the Cosmic Egg and Magical Child among other books) saying that a study was done to determine the commonalities between people who were both happy and brilliant. The one thing that they found to be almost universally true about these people was that they spent a lot of time staring blankly into space.

[usmaak]

The one thing that they found to be almost universally true about these people was that they spent a lot of time staring blankly into space.

Except these days, a lot of that blank staring is wondering why I came into a room in the first place, or why I just opened the refrigerator door.

[Deb]

a study was done to determine the commonalities between people who were both happy and brilliant. The one thing that they found to be almost universally true about these people was that they spent a lot of time staring blankly into space.

Wow, thanks for sharing that. While I am happy a lot of the time, I don't fit the profile. And my teachers certainly would have argued that study.

Except these days, a lot of that blank staring is wondering why I came into a room in the first place, or why I just opened the refrigerator door.

I have that same exact problem. I also sometimes end up with two sets of reading glasses perched on my head.

[leidl]

Sena and all, I love the idea of looking at the Seth material through different lenses.  I hope to hear lots more about hypnotherapy and explorations with new forms of astrology.  I hope we revive ESP experiments, as was suggested recently. 

Sena posted this Seth quote in another thread, and because of my preference for slow rumination I didn't respond to it at the time:

"It is past the time for you to be entranced by other personalities including my own. It is time for you to become entranced with your own personality. It is time for you to feel independent enough to launch yourselves from your own subjective reality into others; to emerge, to drop the paraphernalia of all dogma. Not for new dogma but for new freedom. Not to substitute one authority for another, but to allow yourselves the freedom to recognize that the prime authority is All That Is that resides within you and that speaks with your own voice."

Thank you for that quote, Sena. 

One of the things I love about Spira is that he emphasizes self-enquiry.  He too wants us to become entranced with our own personalities.  Instead of getting caught up in concepts, get caught up in the I that wrestles with those concepts.  What is the nature of this I that seeks out concepts?  What is the nature of the I that looks for new authorities?

The nature of this I is awareness, Spira leads us to observe.  Awareness without boundaries.  Seth talks about our consciousness as not having boundaries, too.

Some here have expressed dislike of the eastern traditions because they seem to suggest that the self is absorbed into All That Is after death.  I feel like Spira's iceberg metaphor for the self fits with Seth's comments of the self as well as it fits with Advaita.  The metaphor acknowledges the self is ever-changing, which Seth also says:

• "Once again I make the point, a seeming paradox: The self constantly changes. The self at any given moment is not the self that it was, yet it is that which it was, since it is that which changed."

• "Selves are not destroyed. They change into other selves, and yet are still themselves, for each new self is also the previous self which changed through acting upon itself."

—TES3 Session 142 March 22, 1965

An iceberg both has continuity over time, and does not.  We can point to an iceberg today and again tomorrow, but it is not the same iceberg today and tomorrow.  But in another sense, it is still itself, as Seth says of us.  It is a beautiful paradox.

What Seth emphasizes that eastern philosophy does not is that the continuous change is self-directed; we participate in the creativity of ATI.  We are like self-aware icebergs that CHOOSE to have parts melt away, build up, and crack off.  This distinction between Seth and eastern philosophies is why I am here on this board, rather than discussing Advaita on another board.    But I do think that some of the metaphors used by those folks are helpful!  And I think Spira is right to direct our attention to the nature of our own being, rather than layers of concepts.  Seth is different from Buddhism and Advaita in important ways.  But he is concept-heavy!  Apples and oranges.  I want both in my world. 

[Sena]

What Seth emphasizes that eastern philosophy does not is that the continuous change is self-directed; we participate in the creativity of ATI.  We are like self-aware icebergs that CHOOSE to have parts melt away, build up, and crack off.  This distinction between Seth and eastern philosophies is why I am here on this board, rather than discussing Advaita on another board.    But I do think that some of the metaphors used by those folks are helpful!  And I think Spira is right to direct our attention to the nature of our own being, rather than layers of concepts.  Seth is different from Buddhism and Advaita in important ways.  But he is concept-heavy!  Apples and oranges.  I want both in my world.

leidl, thanks for introducing us to Rupert Spira. I found that three of his books are available on Kindle  Unlimted in the U.K., and I downloaded "The Nature of Consciousness: Essays on the Unity of Mind and Matter".

It seems to me that a key difference between Spira's Advita and Seth's teachings is in what happens to consciousness after death:

"The body is an appearance of mind, which is itself a modulation, colouring or conditioning of infinite consciousness, so the death of the body entails the dissolution or unravelling of a particular configuration of mind. However, there is nothing to suggest that the underlying forms and energies of mind, which previously condensed to appear as the body, may not remain in a looser configuration when the body disappears. The disintegration of a whirlpool leaves a residue of ripples in the river in which it was localised long after the whirlpool has lost its specific form, and this residue may form the basis on which a new whirlpool coalesces downstream.* In the same way, the forms or energies of mind that coalesced to form the appearance of a body in one lifetime may remain present in consciousness after the body has disappeared, and there is nothing to suggest that these residues may not coalesce 'downstream' and appear in the form of a new body, and thus in another life." (from "The Nature of Consciousness: Essays on the Unity of Mind and Matter" by Rupert Spira, Deepak Chopra, Bernardo Kastrup)

https://amzn.eu/9XOBj66

According to Seth, the personality remains intact after death. According to Spira, "a residue of ripples in the river in which it was localised long after the whirlpool has lost its specific form, and this residue may form the basis on which a new whirlpool coalesces downstream." May be I agree with Spira – I would be quite happy if "Sena" continues as ripples in the river.

Spira's view of time is rather similar to Seth's, as revealed in this video clip:

[Kyle]

Thanks, Sena. This may be the first time I've viewed a Rupert Spira video. He certainly has a gift for speaking to the intuitions and bringing clarity to a hard topic. This reminded me when I saw Kastrup's name, that his own forum has members who mention the Seth material now and then. It's a strongly idealist-leaning forum and Seth is clearly an idealist, to say the least.

Finding this group -- yay! -- is a milestone in my Seth "homecoming." My current perspective is coming from phenomenology and archetypal psychology/astrology. There's a James Hillman forum where I've posted several of the case studies that reside on my blog. A few members there responded with memories of their own Seth stories, after I posted my counterpart study of Jane to that FB group. I'm just in the midst of understanding how these different views can best be related to each other, since there is a great deal of overlap between them.

Here's my blog address if anyone is interested: symbolistics.wordpress.com. The Jane Roberts study is near the front.

[Sena]

This reminded me when I saw Kastrup's name, that his own forum has members who mention the Seth material now and then.

Kyle, thanks for your comments. I had a quick look at the Kastrup forum. Are you sure they refer to "our" Seth? In the references I found, they refer to Anil Seth (the neuroscientist) or the biblical Seth (the father of Enos).

I found a James Hillman forum where they refer to Seth, the brother of Osiris.

[Kyle]

This reminded me when I saw Kastrup's name, that his own forum has members who mention the Seth material now and then.

Kyle, thanks for your comments. I had a quick look at the Kastrup forum. Are you sure they refer to "our" Seth? In the references I found, they refer to Anil Seth (the neuroscientist) or the biblical Seth (the father of Enos).

I found a James Hillman forum where they refer to Seth, the brother of Osiris.

I was thinking of an older Kastrup forum, a google group which is called Metaphysical Speculations. I didn't mean to send you on a futile search. Look for 'Jane Roberts' instead. Same for the Hillman FB group, there's not much other than my post, and brief comments to that.

[Deb]

I thought the Spira video was very good in that his explanation of time and space was pretty clear. He's good at communicating and appears to firmly believe what he's saying. But it also left me feeling grateful for my familiar 3D illusory life because his view seemed a little bleak to me. I probably need to know more about his whole philosophy. Such as his take on purpose of life or if there is one, if there other systems beyond this physical one, or if there's just a random ebb and flow of energy and temporary consciousness or awareness of self.

I want to believe that all of the learning, thinking, creations and interactions with others have some meaning and purpose and I won't just end up like a short-lived ripple in a stream—making no lasting impact on anything. Kind of takes the meaning out of everything.

[Tob]

Hi, please find below a link to a page where Bashar's cosmology has been outlined in flow text. I have been working with the Bashar material for several years now and could not find any major inconsistencies or inherent contradictions. According to Bashar 'every single word that Seth is saying is correct'. However, key terminology is used differently, according to Bashar.

http://www.sethforum.de/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2609

If you go to page 14 you will find a section where the two cosmologies are juxtaposed for further analysis or comparison. You will find drawings and a table depicting the basic outlines of the respective two cosmologies and you will see that they can be indeed integrated.

I had a private session with Bashar and asked him about 'consciousness units', 'coordinate points', and the 'death of atoms' (an issue Rubert Butts did regret not to have delved into further).

As far as 'consciousness units' are concerned, there is no direct correlation (Bashar). It's just about 'the finer grains' below the level of subatomic particles. The information given regarding 'coordinate points' and the 'death of atoms' seems to be compatible with Seth, to the extent that such a statement can be made.

I did read some of the Seth books in the 80s. I got stuck over various physical issues such as the 'blinking of the universe' (Seth) and several, if not many terms which did not make sense to me at that time. It was Bashar's cosmology which finally helped me understand Seth's concepts as far as the crucial points are concerned.

Actually, I had not understood Bashar either. He is always emphasizing that we are 'shifting, shifting, shifting', thus constantly changing 'our universe'. I could not understand that as well, and as in the case of Seth, I had the impression that there is a big community of 'believers', even 'devotees' for whom the golden rule applicable is to never go too much into details. Things are seemingly there and information provided to be somehow sorted out 'in dreams' or other states of altered consciousness, and as far as the 'shifting' is concerned, it is a mantra, which is to be constantly repeated and recited with an overdose of 'feel-good' attitude.

Actually, there is NO shifting (in the sense of just moving somehow 'sideways'). The universe is a multiverse and it is re-created billions of times per second – at the rate of Planck time, to be precise. Everybody is CONSTANTLY creating his/her own universe which is constantly expanding from and collapsing to a zero point. Thus, the term 'shifting' is actually misleading, but it is still being used by Bashar despite his precise explanations given in the 'nine levels of consciousness' session.

If you read Tom Campbell's virtual reality theory (there is a brilliant video on youtube together with Jim Elvidge) it becomes clear that the existence of a virtual universe, which is being reproduced at the rate of Planck time could automatically explain a lot of phenomena which must be otherwise neglected by standard physics, such as 'glitches in the matrix', paranormal effects, dreams, extraterrestrials, etc.

If you bring the three strains together (Bashar, Seth, Tom Campbell) it becomes possible to understand the physical aspects of Seths cosmology, i.e: to read the books.

It becomes understandable what Seth means when he says that there is no time (no, there isn't), that there is no 'cause and effect', that the universe is 'blinking' and many other statements. Against the 'blinking' of the universe, these terms and statements appear in a different light, a different context. The 'capsule comprehension' of particles is a proxy for the holographic character of creation.

After bringing together bits and pieces of Bashar's cosmology (which did not make sense either, as I said, before stumbling over the 'virtual reality theory', I successfully managed to return to the complicated Seth materials. I could read and understand 'Unknown Reality', 'Nature of Personal Reality', 'Dreams and Value Fulfillment'. Now I am reading the early sessions, Vol. 2. So far things are clear. Especially chapters 50 till 64 where the individual production of 'reality' is meticulously described, even from the point of view of a cat and other animals. With the precision of a schoolbook.

In short: Without Tom Campbell I would not have been able to understand Bashar's cosmology. Without understanding Bashar's cosmology – at least in my case - it is not possible to read and understand the Seth books.

Reading the Seth books is extremely time consuming, but at least against the background of Tom Campbell's virtual reality theory key concepts used by Seth become clear and understandable.

To Seth it is of paramount importance that his books are understood (by readers, not by dreamers) and that the overreliance on the intellect (which has brought us to the edge of an abyss) is not being one-sidedly replaced by a new irrationalism. He is absolutely clear on that.

[Sena]

When comparing Bashar and Seth, one may be inclined to say that Bashar is rather 'the comedian' (has to do with the format in which the material is presented), while Seth is 'the scientist'. Yes, he is and the subject matter is very difficult. But it can be understood.

@Tob ,thanks for your summary of the Bashar material. How does one decide between the various channelers? Are you familar with Carla Rueckert's Law of One material?

I did mention this as long ago as 2016, but there was no response to my post!:

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=612.0

[Tob]

Hi Sena, I am still a bit reluctant to provide such a statement. I simply do not know. How do you decide which book you want to read or which cinema film you want to see?

I assume everybody has his own specific system to come to such a conclusion. Most of it not being really clear, definitely not logical. Rather psycho-logical.

From what I could read so far, I am 'relatively' convinced by Bashar and I have the impression that I am convinced by Seth. That is why I am prepared to invest a lot of time in the Seth books.

Kind regards

Tob

[Deb]

I did mention this as long ago as 2016, but there was no response to my post!

Sorry Sena, that does happen once in a while, it's happened to me as well. As admin I'm supposed to get notice of every new topic and post on the forum, but I don't always. It may be a problem with the software, or email in general. It got to the point where I've made myself three admin member accounts here, with three different email clients (Google, Proton, and thru my hosting company) hoping at least one of them will get through, and yet it still happens once in a while. That makes me think the software does not always send emails. I've taken it up with support a few times, but no one had an answer. It may be time for me to update the software, even though the new version is still in beta and so there will be some bugs, but maybe that will solve the email issue. Also... not everyone starts out looking at "View the most recent posts on the forum" where they would find new topics. Or if they do, they may not go beyond the first page, so if there's an active topic a new one can get buried pretty quickly.

@Tob thanks for the information on Bashar. I'd seen some of his YouTubes in the past, he made sense. But by then, I'd already become deeply entrenched in the Seth materials. It's good that he helped you understand Seth better. There are still some things I would like to understand better, but it's not Seth's fault, it's my challenge to "know" on a deeper level the reality of things like time and space, rather than getting the concepts. But I'm willing to accept that for now. The majority of the Seth materials resonate with me, some don't, I'm ok with that too. Out of curiosity I've listened to other channelers that have been recommended to me, but I enjoy the depth and detail of Seth. I was a fan of Abraham Hicks years ago, until I wasn't. I was curious about this Seth Jerry and Esther would mention now and then, and wanted to go to the source of the information. It was a one way trip for me.

I'll read your posts again later, I've been working on something that's tied my brain in knots and so I need to clear my head. I did get a quick look at the cosmology charts you mentioned, and my first impression was they would be very useful visual for someone trying to understand the different aspects of consciousness.

[Sena]

Sorry Sena, that does happen once in a while, it's happened to me as well.

Deb, I know you are a very busy person - I was thinking more of the 620 members! After I posted in 2016 I did not look much further into the Law of One. I discovered yesterday that all the Law of One books are available for free download. I downloaded the first book. i found the book very interesting. There are similarities to Seth, but also very significant differences. If any members here are serious about the Seth teachings, I think they should have a look at the Law of One, and then make clear why they reject the Law of One in favor of the Seth teachings.

[Deb]

I was thinking more of the 620 members!

Well, I can give you some insight into that. Since SoS was born in 2014, as soon as a new member joins, I rush into their Profile and set their Notifications to Instant/Replies and Moderation, since the default is set to none and there's no setting to change the default. I'm assuming the average person wants to be notified when someone responds to their posts. If not, they can change the setting back to "Moderation only" if they prefer.

We have an average of .29 registrations per DAY, which translates to 2 a week. I used to have a notice on the home page to Guests saying that some boards can only be viewed by Members, so if they want to see everything they need to register for an account. A lot of people were registering but not posting, so I took the notice off, thinking only people who are willing to participate would sign up. But... it still happens.

There have been a number of spammers signing up. Actually, the day I launched the forum more than 200 spammers opened accounts. I had to change the registration process for new members being required to answer two questions and also  to confirm their account through an auto-generated email. That helped quite a bit.

Of the 621 (as of today) members, a whopping 435 have never posted. A few years ago I saw that trend, and changed the registration process to immediate, rather than requiring a confirmation follow-up, since I thought maybe in some cases the confirmation emails were ending up in Junk folders. It didn't make a difference. We still get a rare spammer registering an account but I know them for what they are and delete them. Tips offs are obviously false account information, nonsense email addresses, IP addresses usually from Taiwan or Russia. Links to websites for Viagra or porn or sometimes both.

We have an average of 12 people who log in daily, most of whom participate, but several of them rarely post. So they are logging in because they enjoy reading what's being discussed, but for their own reasons don't write. I don't interpret it as apathy, I've come to accept it. Also, members come and go for their own reasons, and some people reappear after taking a long sabbatical, so I don't delete the 0 posters, or those who haven't posted for a year or more. People move on to other things, are not as tied to the Seth materials after a while, have things going on in their lives... some people just don't enjoy long conversations or have the time. Some people have just one question, get answers, and they're done. Even the SethTalks forum is slow, and Chris's explanation was that most members left the discussion forum for their Facebook group. While we don't have a FB group, we do have a page that directs people to here. I don't have the time to maintain a FB group, and there are already so many Seth groups on FB! Also, my intention was to have a discussion forum that acts as an archive or resource for Seth materials, rather than the meme or quote a day, here today/gone tomorrow mentality of FB groups.

If any members here are serious about the Seth teachings, I think they should have a look at the Law of One, and then make clear why they reject the Law of One in favor of the Seth teachings.

I think that's a good idea, I'm not opposed to downloading a book to see how it "sits" with me. Can you provide the link to the books? Since they're free to downloads, I don't think the link needs to be hidden from Guests for copyright reasons, so you can just add it to this topic.

Deb, I know you are a very busy person

And just became busier! About 2 weeks ago I started a new project with Laurel and I'm a bit overwhelmed right now, but hopefully it will settle down to a steady pace once we get a "rhythm." I'll share what's going on in the SRP board when I have a chance, things are still in the preliminary stages.

[michaelk]

yeah, this is an awesome way to approach things, Sena. many thanks for bringing it up.

already with just these responses it's getting my mind to think along different lines.

i had planned to bring it up in a topic at some point, but i love the whole self-hypnosis part of things. i use it every day in meditation.

not sure if anyone else has looked at any of the books by joe dispenza, but one of the central things of his stuff, is meditation. but as he said one time in a workshop (and i thought the same thing) was that it's really just self-hypnosis, or similar to self-hypnosis.

the seth material was great and for me had a very practical feel for how the universe really works. but his exercises really didn't help me get into changing my beliefs. the meditation/self-hypnosis of dispenza was the thing that clicked it over for me. i actively work every morning in meditation, and i think i've really been doing a great, and powerful job of changing some of my core beliefs. good god they keep coming up again and again, but it seems the dips are less severe than they used to be, while i feel like i've been better able to directively create my reality. at least, until i don't! then the cycle starts again... hahahahhahaa

if anyone is interested, dispenza's book "breaking the habit of being yourself" is a great place to start, at least for his approach to meditations, as well as the background information on how/why it works. at least according to him. very in depth on the background which helps you to understand how thoughts/beliefs/etc actually get changed. very practical, with a lot of practical knowledge. this was the practical element that i found was missing from the seth material, for me to really change my beliefs.

but for me, seth is the absolute source for understanding how the world and reality works. the framework.

now i'm not a hypnosis guy or anything even close, just a person who has looked for information on how i can change my beliefs - and explored self-hypnosis to do that. if you're looking for any books i found that charles tebbetts' book "self hypnosis and other mind-expanding techniques" had a lot of good basic information as well as induction techniques/scripts. tebbetts, from what i've seen, was a pretty big guy in hypnosis, and his book "miracles on demand" i found was just outstanding, where he takes you through pretty much scripts/transcripts of hypnosis sessions that he did and how he approached each person and their issues. tebbetts i think learned a lot of his practical techniques from gil boyne.

"self-hypnosis" is fairly available as a used book (check amazon and abe or wherever you like to go), while "miracles" is a little pricy.

i do have some questions about what others believe we're exactly changing when we do self-hypnosis - the sub-conscious of course, but - i'd like to look at it from a seth point of view to better seat myself while i'm doing it. i'll post a question in another post. actually - Deb (or anyone else) since i'm new - where would a question/topic like that best be posted?

Now I am reading the early sessions, Vol. 2. So far things are clear. Especially chapters 50 till 64 where the individual production of 'reality' is meticulously described, even from the point of view of a cat and other animals. With the precision of a schoolbook.

Tob - many thanks for this. one of the things i want to get back to is to refresh my understanding of seth's full view of reality and how to create it. after so much in the weeds work, i want to understand more where he stood, to reference that back to what i seem to be understanding for myself. so this is really great. and will also probably help me with the question i want to pose re: seth and self-hypnosis.

i'm actually very excited about all that has been talked about so far here, and what else is going to come of it.


many thanks

[Sena]

yeah, this is an awesome way to approach things, Sena. many thanks for bringing it up.

Hi Micahel, welcome to the forum, and I look forward to reading about your ideas.

[Deb]

not sure if anyone else has looked at any of the books by joe dispenza, but one of the central things of his stuff, is meditation. but as he said one time in a workshop (and i thought the same thing) was that it's really just self-hypnosis, or similar to self-hypnosis.

Ha ha, yes I know Dr. Joe. Very well. I've been to many of his workshops (when he was still doing weekend workshops). The first one was here in Colorado, at Shambhala Mountain Center in Red Feather Lakes. He wasn't well known at that point, and there were about 20 of us sitting on the floor in a yoga room. I sat at his feet the whole weekend (he had a chair), totally fascinated. The last one I went to was in Tacoma, and we had 4 hour meditation that began at sunrise. Having had a couple of cups of coffee before that, and bathroom breaks meant getting locked out (there must have been 500 of us stretched out on the floor, in the dark, it was a safety issue), I was inspired to create a spoof product (see attachment).  We also did walking meditations that weekend, and that was a memorable experience! One early morning, we walked to a nearby park in the rain and fog, plugged in our earbuds and did our own individual walking meditations. It was amazing and other-worldly.

Funny thing is, while I've read most of his books, the Placebo one twice, and have his Breaking the Habit book, I've not actually read it. Next book to read on my ever growing list! I haven't made time to meditate in a long time and I really miss it. That's a habit I need to make—get back into meditating daily.

i do have some questions about what others believe we're exactly changing when we do self-hypnosis - the sub-conscious of course, but - i'd like to look at it from a seth point of view to better seat myself while i'm doing it. i'll post a question in another post. actually - Deb (or anyone else) since i'm new - where would a question/topic like that best be posted?

Thanks for asking! I suppose there are several places you could post that, I don't really keep that tight of a ship unless a new topic is totally in left field. Seth-Related Discussions is pretty popular, we always end up bringing things back to Seth. Or Questions/Explanations. Non-public Discussions if you don't want Guests to see it (some people like to keep things private), Miscellaneous... your choice!

[michaelk]

I was inspired to create a spoof product (see attachment). 

oh this is HILARIOUS!!!!! and completely useful. my wife and i can definitely relate. we were in cancun in 2019 and that 4 hour meditation had us seriously worried. hahahahahahaa... i think i stopped drinking anything at 8p the night before.