Seth on the afterlife

[Sena]

Seth had surprisingly little to say on the afterlife:

https://findingseth.com/q/afterlife/

There are only 9 references to the afterlife in all the Seth books.

Seth said there is no past or future, only the present. If there is no future, how can there be an afterlife?

For a philosophical view of the afterlife, i found this article which I have only just begun to read:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/B:MAWO.0000003937.47171.a9.pdf

Here is an interesting quote from the article:

The thematic of the Double is thus well worth pursuing. It runs through Western literature, most famously
perhaps in Dostoyevsky's The Double and Stevenson's The Strange Case of
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Moreover the topic of the double in literature is
itself a literature; that is, critical writings on the double constitute a literature
in itself. In both respects, certain analogies exist between literary and philosophical literatures. In a quite specific sense, Descartes's double is res cogitans; Nietzsche's double is Zarathustra; Heidegger's double is Dasein, and Dasein
is itself double in that it has the possibility of being either authentic or
inauthentic Dasein.

What is the "Double"? It brings to mind our old friend, Seth's Inner Self. It appears that the Inner Self exists out of time and is thus immortal. The Outer Self or personality may not be immortal.

[LarryH]

There are only 9 references to the afterlife in all the Seth books.

Seth said there is no past or future, only the present. If there is no future, how can there be an afterlife?

Sena, it appears that when Seth used the term "afterlife", he was generally referring to conventional belief systems, not using the term to describe his view of things. The way I would put it is that our focus can be in physical life or it can be in a non-physical "timeless" existence. From our perspective, "afterlife" seems to apply, and when we are done with physical life, our perception of time changes. We survive physical death. Would you agree?

[Sena]

We survive physical death.

Larry, do you mean we continue AFTER physical death?

[Tob]

There are only 9 references to the afterlife in all the Seth books.

Seth said there is no past or future, only the present. If there is no future, how can there be an afterlife?

Sena, it appears that when Seth used the term "afterlife", he was generally referring to conventional belief systems, not using the term to describe his view of things. The way I would put it is that our focus can be in physical life or it can be in a non-physical "timeless" existence. From our perspective, "afterlife" seems to apply, and when we are done with physical life, our perception of time changes. We survive physical death. Would you agree?

447 if you look for 'after death'

[LarryH]

Larry, do you mean we continue AFTER physical death?

Is that a "gotcha" question? It would appear, based on Tob's recommended search for "after death" in findingseth.com, that Seth did use that phrase often. So he is using our language and understanding of time to describe the point upon which we enter a reality in which there is no time, or at least our experience of it is vastly different. It is difficult to understand how one can have experiences without the passage of time, so I tend to view it as simply a reality in which time has different characteristics than those that we experience in physical reality.

In the movie M*A*S*H, the characters play a card game, TEGWAR. It is an acronym for The Exciting Game Without Any Rules. They make up the rules as they go along. Maybe afterdeath reality is like that: TEGWAT, The Exciting Game Without Any Time. In that reality, maybe we "create" time as we see fit, making it up as we go along, manipulating it in the same way that we do so in dreams. And Seth does say that dream reality is the same as the reality that we find ourselves after death, though we forget the important parts due to our limited understanding.

[Deb]

Seth said there is no past or future, only the present. If there is no future, how can there be an afterlife?

I agree that Seth was using our terms. Plus our physical system has it's own set of rules. While here, we have time and appear to have a past, present and future. From Chapter 9, Seth Speaks:

"I am using your own terms here. By "dead," therefore, I mean completely unfocused in physical reality. Now your consciousness, quite simply, is not physically alive, physically oriented, for exactly the same amount of time as it is physically alive and oriented."

So we simply switch our focus from physical to nonphysical without missing a beat in consciousness, memories intact. We supposedly do it all the time with the blinking in and out of physical reality, we just don't notice it. With the final shift of focus, the physical body, no longer being maintained by us, is recycled.

I do have a hard time understanding simultaneous time. I mean, I know what it is and can consider it being real, but from my experiences here on Earth things like history, getting older, yesterday/today/tomorrow, cause and effect are what I know.

As far as the Double, I could only access the article's Abstract without subscribing. I can't get an understanding of what the author means by double. I wonder if it is more of an entity/incarnation thing? I remember Seth saying we have a nonphysical counterpart, which I take to be me as an entity:

"Every physical manifestation that you know has its nonphysical counterpart, in which it is always couched, from which it came, and to which it will return."
—DEaVF2 Chapter 9: Session 928, November 12, 1980

[Sena]

As far as the Double, I could only access the article's Abstract without subscribing. I can't get an understanding of what the author means by double. I wonder if it is more of an entity/incarnation thing? I remember Seth saying we have a nonphysical counterpart, which I take to be me as an entity:

Deb, I'll email you the article. It is fairly heavy reading. It is possible that the author is referring to something like the entity. It is interesting that she refers to Nietzsche's Zarathustra, who Nietzsche describes as "superman". Zarathustra may well be Nietzsche's entity. This idea inspired the composer Richard Strauss, and you may have heard that music in the film Space Odyssey 2001:

[Sena]

447 if you look for 'after death'

Tob, you are right.
Chapter 11 of Seth Speaks, "After-death choices and the mechanics of transition" has all the information.

[Tob]

447 if you look for 'after death'

Tob, you are right.
Chapter 11 of Seth Speaks, "After-death choices and the mechanics of transition" has all the information.

This may help you with the time problem. That's the best way I could describe the 'incompatibilities' of the different concepts:

If you imagine a revolving beam of light (it may be the entity) being deployed in a museum, shining light in one moment on one picture in one room, the next moment on another picture in a second room, and so forth until the first picture is lit again (revolving beam) you get a metaphor for various lives lived 'at the same time'. The pictures all exist together in the museum, all 'at the same time', but the 'avatars' in the pictures are only illuminated (and thus activated) for a fraction of a second. From their perspective, however, what matters (to them) is the individual timeframe as expressed by the specific painting (18th century, male, rich; 20th century, female, rich; 9th century, male, poor, etc.) The neuronal pattern of the avatars in the picture is biologically aligned with the rhythm of the light beam, thus they are just 'activated' the very split second when the picture with the 'historic scenery' is illuminated. On an individual basis all the avatars in any of the picture in the various rooms of the museum would get the impression of being an integral part embedded in a continually existing environment, characterized by a specific timeframe which corresponds to the specific topic or theme expressed by the painting. The avatars would not be able to perceive any 'dark' (non-illuminated) moments and as the technical gadgets (IN the pictures) are aligned with (and part of) the same 'materialization' pattern, the avatars in the paintings are even structurally unable to measure the absence of (hypothesized) light moments with the gadgets. Pondering the existence of something so weird as a revolving beam of light or even a museum is perceived as outlandish and is discussed only philosophically (provided they 'live' long enough and dont' kill each other in the paintings). Some of them may wish to sit in a quiet moment and meditate about framework one and framework two issues (the Seth concepts) or Bashar's world on Essassani. And once they developed the ability of dissociating themselves far enough from their daily events (in the pictures), some of them may have (what they then call) out-of-body experiences, getting glimpses of other pictures, the light beam, or even the museum. But no one would believe them.

On various occasions Seth mentioned that when he is in contact with Jane there is an aspect of time involved on his side as well. But this time aspect is different from the time we experience 'at the same time'.

[Tob]

447 if you look for 'after death'

Tob, you are right.
Chapter 11 of Seth Speaks, "After-death choices and the mechanics of transition" has all the information.

This may help you with the time problem. That's the best way I could describe the 'incompatibilities' of the different concepts:

If you imagine a revolving beam of light (it may be the entity) being deployed in a museum, shining light in one moment on one picture in one room, the next moment on another picture in a second room, and so forth until the first picture is lit again (revolving beam) you get a metaphor for various lives lived 'at the same time'. The pictures all exist together in the museum, all 'at the same time', but the 'avatars' in the pictures are only illuminated (and thus activated) for a fraction of a second. From their perspective, however, what matters (to them) is the individual timeframe as expressed by the specific painting (18th century, male, rich; 20th century, female, rich; 9th century, male, poor, etc.) The neuronal pattern of the avatars in the picture is biologically aligned with the rhythm of the light beam, thus they are just 'activated' the very split second when the picture with the 'historic scenery' is illuminated. On an individual basis all the avatars in any of the picture in the various rooms of the museum would get the impression of being an integral part embedded in a continually existing environment, characterized by a specific timeframe which corresponds to the specific topic or theme expressed by the painting. The avatars would not be able to perceive any 'dark' (non-illuminated) moments and as the technical gadgets (IN the pictures) are aligned with (and part of) the same 'materialization' pattern, the avatars in the paintings are even structurally unable to measure the absence of (hypothesized) light moments with the gadgets. Pondering the existence of something so weird as a revolving beam of light or even a museum is perceived as outlandish and is discussed only philosophically (provided they 'live' long enough and dont' kill each other in the paintings). Some of them may wish to sit in a quiet moment and meditate about framework one and framework two issues (the Seth concepts) or Bashar's world on Essassani. And once they developed the ability of dissociating themselves far enough from their daily events (in the pictures), some of them may have (what they then call) out-of-body experiences, getting glimpses of other pictures, the light beam, or even the museum. But no one would believe them.

On various occasions Seth mentioned that when he is in contact with Jane there is an aspect of time involved on his side as well. But this time aspect is different from the time we experience 'at the same time'.

In TES 1 and 2 Robert Butts had the impression that Seth was able to manipulate the time on their side, i.e. in their apartment, as by far too much information was delivered between breaks.

[strangerthings]

S up'er Man
"S"

He is the only one that is born by birthright to have Superman capabilities. Superman is Superman and merely plays Clark. Spiderman nope, batman nope, who else. It wasnt by a scientific experiment or waste and no outer physical anything gave thus to this Super Man.. He was born Superman.

S up
("er" is a suffix meaning the one doing the action of Up 👆🏻 For me, I as my own inTerpreTer sees upper as.... inner. So to me superman is the INNER MAN. 💃

( plus there is the S you add for a plural word as in "many gods" 🙃 or Goddess or Wise as a serpent gentle as a dove, sperm)

What do I eat for "s upper".........?

Tehee having a bit of fun, ble ss ings

---

Simultaneous time is to me ...

Ok for example: I hold many beliefs. Emotions. Thoughts. All at once. Same time in the now. Its my present point of power. And All That Is and states ....are All That Is available every one of them, when you no longer focus on a state, it returns, to whence it came, always available to anyone choosing it.

So I am thinking......considering we have all of this from the "past" it is still with us "now". ( memory)

Be being. Be that which you want to be.
Many beliefs, many realities.

I Am a "That" I am what I clothe myself. All beliefs wear a garment of whatever they mean. We put the coat on and we can wear many coats and hats.

Our Consciousness is no different. Portions go here.... portions go there......

All available Now.

No one carries MY past but me and I brought it to me in the now to change my past. Both simultabeously happening at once.

Expanding it further, I am a mutli dimensional "Being"
I Be being.


I be being all sorts of beingnesses. 😆

All available and here... now.

Future projections are also in the bag.
Some sqiurm tossing their sperm there.
Past and Future worry dance.
Or now be being dance.

Draw it forth... time travel to .... all available now.

All That Is is the most undefinale and multidimensional be Being there is and its all available now.

Thats what goes through my mind thinking about simultaneous time and after this physical focus, on this state of life, of my multiple lives of states, of be being them 🤣

It makes sense to me 🤷🏼‍♀️



💃