Shakespeare authorship question/Seth

[Mark M]

I actually have little interest in Shakespeare but am well aware of longstanding doubts of whether he is the actual author of the admired plays.

At the wik' link below:

"Some prominent public figures, including Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Helen Keller, Henry James, Sigmund Freud, John Paul Stevens, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Charlie Chaplin, have found the arguments against Shakespeare's authorship persuasive, and their endorsements are an important element in many anti-Stratfordian arguments."

This first passage was in the session the Mpls., MN discussion group read and discussed today.

Seth:

"This is also the reason why the plays of Shakespeare have endured the centuries. The dramas are not true to life in physical terms, but are true to life in psychic terms."

—TES4 Session 183 August 30, 1965

Now had Seth said "the plays attributed to Shakespeare" above that would seem to indicate WS wasn't the author. As it stands, it would seem Seth is endorsing the common idea that WS wrote the plays.

But either stance is not definitive absent an explicit comment by Seth on the issue.

Maybe Seth didn't happen to know or didn't happen to care.

Food for thought.

Here is another ref to WS:

"The creative abilities must revolve largely about man's definition of himself, his source and purpose, and all of your Western literature and art has revolved about the concept of the Sinful Self in one way or another. The Shakespearean plays are an excellent case in point, even when they concern even older heritages, so the creative artist in any field has certain creative traditions that become classic models for his art and that of the world."

—TPS6 Deleted Session April 20, 1981

Info:

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

[Mark M]

"...all of your Western literature and art has revolved about the concept of the Sinful Self in one way or another..."

I guess that sweeping statement includes Jane's Oversoul 7 books.

[Mark M]

"Ruburt has often wondered at the poor quality of most intuitional material, particularly since it is supposed to be so important. The truth of course is not intrinsically in the nature of the material itself, but in the very fact that it is almost exclusively translated in terms of Christian thought, however bizarre that interpretation might be. For that matter, such material often simply restates the entire concept of the Sinful Self in different form. Often that form is highly inflammatory. The main point is a good one to remember, however."

—TPS6 Deleted Session April 23, 1981

[inavalan]

"The dramas are not true to life in physical terms, but are true to life in psychic terms."
—TES4 Session 183 August 30, 1965

On one hand, I look at this from the perspective that I create my reality, and that there isn't a single historical reality thread, but that I continuously create my past, present, future, selecting paths through the physical-hyperspace: time, rd-space, probability.

On the other hand, as I understand it, everything that I perceive is multi-level symbolical, I should interpret it as deep as I can, I should draw guidance, and I should follow it.

[inavalan]

"Ruburt has often wondered at the poor quality of most intuitional material, particularly since it is supposed to be so important. ..."

—TPS6 Deleted Session April 23, 1981

Whatever we get through our intuition, or from our inner-guide, is distorted through our beliefs and expectations.

Whenever I tap them, I deliberately ask to leave aside all my beliefs and expectations.

[Bora137]

It speaks to me a bit of belief in limitations. That no one person could write such a large amount of brilliant work. I haven't read all his stuff but what I have the style seems highly consistent across works, often marked by exceptional insight into the human condition. Certainly the 'best bits' seem to me to come from a certain perspective suggesting that one person was responsible for them.

[Mark M]

Bora137 wrote: "It speaks to me a bit of belief in limitations. That no one person could write such a large amount of brilliant work...."

Tho there is a group theory, the skeptics don't necessarily argue for multiple authors, they are doubtful that the author was Shakespeare.

The main "suspects" for authorship are:

Sir Francis Bacon
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford
Christopher Marlowe
William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby
.