Who or what Seth is or was

[voidypaul]

 Hi All ,


         just thought i would like to begin a discussion on who or what Seth is or was as there seems to be some misconceptions floating around .


         Seth was Frank Watts in his last incarnation here. Poor old Frank most definately got the short end of the stick in this deal . Most everyone i have heard spk about Seth including former class students, does'nt even bother to mention Frank + yet he was Seths last incarnation + I think it is actually v important that he does get a mention + the recognition he deserves .


         Seth has freely mentioned that humility is not or was not one of his strong points + the main reason why he was born as Frank .  It seems to me that most folks think that Seth had his last incarnation maybe 100's of years ago + has since then been working diligently on the Seth material but such is not the case as poor old Frank was more or less a contemporary of Jane's + someone she possibly loosely knew thru one of her neighbours who was a schoolteacher to one of Franks children .


       Seth obviously then has only recently  left the reincarnational cycle + in fact as i have stated before , actually the Seth material is not of Seth's origination but was given to him by Seth 2 (who is a nonphysical being + has never been physical) + our Seth was in fact the messenger boy so to spk , passing on to Jane what was passed on to him .


       I feel that this is important because it makes Seth more human so to spk , gives poor old Frank the credit he deserves also + puts the origination of the Seth material where it should be ,  from Seth 2 + not our Seth so to spk .


       Be that as it may Seth should be given credit for the way he was able to make contact with Seth 2 , + then Jane + Rob + to be able to retranslate the material he got from Seth 2 so that Jane + therefore we could understand it so clearly , but credit where credit is due , the whole of the material came from Seth2 .  Seth did such a good job of translation from seth2 + Jane put her ego so beautifully to one side, that i consider it to be the best channelled work there has ever been + probably will be for some little time , until the Christ personality makes his return , not too long from now in Seth's reckoning .     


      Hope this clarifies who + what our Seth is or was .
         

[Deb]

i would like to begin a discussion on who or what Seth is or was

What an excellent topic, thank you for doing this. The first thing people ask (I think) when they come across the Seth materials is who or what is/was Seth. And while the pat answer "a personality no longer focused in physical reality" pretty much sums it up, it still doesn't answer any questions.

AND I have to admit I still have trouble telling the uninitiated much about the Seth books. I wish there was a better word than "channel" -- it always makes people look at me sideways. Although any religious person would say the bible was written by God through others and not think twice about it. The channeling thing is still a small issue for me because of all the charlatans out there, but there's no other explanation other than what some psychiatrists said about Jane's mental health. Taking all that was written into consideration, Jane and Rob's lack of sensationalism and the variety and massive amount of knowledge that came from Seth, my skeptic scale was tipped in Seth's favor. For the first time in my life.

When Jane and Rob were first messing around with the board and Frank (the fathead, lol) came through with a lot of details surrounding himself (where he lived, when, family members) I don't recall them mentioning in the book that they actually checked those details out. I would have been all over that, myself.

In my mind, I see Seth as an oversoul of sorts, no longer incarnating (His choice? Or did he "graduate" from Earth-school?), sometimes sitting in his created 16th century office, communicating with Jane. I wonder what his perspective was in the process. For some reason this just jogged my memory about a dream I had this morning, talking with someone about Seth and creation and a desk of my own.

And yes, then there's Seth 2. An oversoul of Seth? Seth 2 is certainly not ATI, who knows how many layers of consciousness exist between the source and us. The visual I have is of a dandelion seed head, but with many, maybe infinite levels of consciousness: oversouls, splinter souls, incarnations and probable selves, thought form things... It boggles my mind, like contemplating infinity always has. And I wonder how much more we could have learned, and how many more Seths we'd have been introduced to, had Jane continued her life's work. I'll be putting up a new post from Barrie on Facebook about why Seth would never communicate through anyone else. Maybe Jane just wore out?

So yes, it sounded to me that Seth was channeling the distant Seth 2 (hopefully Seth interpreting Seth 2 with more clarity than Jane, who did an amazing job), then communicating information to Jane and Jane interpreting that with as objective a mind as possible. Again, a visual, of an old fashioned ham radio connection with static, difficulty hearing and best connections at night when there's less electrical interference.

[Deb]

A reader of this forum who is not that familiar with the Seth books may confuse this with the Christian distortion which says that Christ will come again to "judge the living and the dead". Seth explicitly stated that this not the case:

Sena, another great topic! Do you mind if I start a new topic with your comment and then link these two topics so people can find both?

Where'd you find that quote?

Note: Christ Personality conversation moved to a new topic:

Deb, I would be very happy for you to start a new topic on the future coming of Christ. This is where I found the quote (from "Seth Speaks"): Link Here

[voidypaul]

Hi Sena,
           thanks for the compliment + your own addition of Seth's quotes , very apt + fitting . i agree many would confuse the Christ personality with the rather innacurate renderings in the Bible  via the church 'fathers', so my compliments to you on the clarity of your reading of the Seth material . I hope i make this Christs aquaintence as without doubt He will have a true rendering of the void states that i am so inarticulate in proposing to the sethians here . Nice one old bean .




  Yoohoo Deb,
             yes , i hope that my post will make Seth a little more accessible to those who are new to the Seth material.
             I agree that channeling is much maligned + missunderstood + even abused by those charlatans you mention , well intentioned or not. Screw the small minded dim witted psychoanalysts , what the fck do they know . Yes , definitely , if one has an open mind then one cannot but come to the conclusion that Seth is the real deal because of the strength + validity of his material which immediately touches the knowing inner self + strikes exactly the right chord .


           Ahh, Frank the fathead (naughty Seth) who ''literally redeemed'' Seth as he also quite humbly said + to whom Seth said he would make up to for the dingy rather drab life he led . We will all find our redemption in one way or another hahaha. One good reason to never critisize the simpler folk in our societies as within , they may well be the likes of Seth himself or even a part of our own entity's .


          Yep, Seth is an inner self or entity now + will not incarnate again + sends out his own personality fragments. And we will all  come to make the choice one day of further incarnations or to stay as we are or become an entity in our own right. Nothing is lost or taken away from what we have become or achieved through our life cycles, just ever new choices to make . I think Seth said that he + Jane + Rob were once a part of the same entity or inner self but that Jane (+ Rob) chose to split from the initial inner self + find their own way + have i believe, now chosen to become entitys in their own right .


         Seth 2 is the originating entity or oversoul as you put it but he chose never to become physical but was one of the founding entitys that helped to create the physical system as we know it. One of those who created the dreamers that Seth spoke of in Dreams evolution etc, that did not saddle the physical self with an ego , which came much later.


         I believe that the oversoul will go on to become what Seth describes as a pyramid gestalt creating their own universal manifestations (out of the void) but i am not so certain of Seths terms here but basically this is the type of progression you quite rightly asssume goes on + on + on .... hahahahaha. Yes , you got it again Deb , Seth channelled Seth 2 who abides in the deeper void states never needing to become physical but who imparted the complex emotional 'mathematics' , 'geometries' + infinite personality essences that go to make up the whole of the physical systems of reality including the planets + all physical processes of seasons etc etc.   
         Seth is now a concious co-creator + helps maintain + further these systems, as we are unconscious co-creators who will one day become as Seth is, consciously aware of our part in ATI's Divine Creation.    As Jane + Rob, as Rubert + Joseph are now doing ...


         Seth channelled Seth 2 , + broke down that information so that Jane (+ we) could understand it, Jane as a true channel did the best she could to put aside her ego + allow Seth to come through with as much clarity as he did + was largely supremely successful in what she did , bless her but i think that some of the information confused + frightened her because of her past with her mother + the church which i believe led to her inner snarl ups which were reflected in her health + i believe her early passing on.


     peace , paul
         

[LenKop]

From the Preface by Seth, in Nature Of Personal Reality


'I am not a physical personality. Basically, neither are you.
You are a creator translating your expectations into physical form...'


Just keeping it in perspective. 


LK

[voidypaul]

Hi LenKop,
                   
             No, actually you're going somewhat off topic here Len, the whole point i'm trying to make is that Seth is actually not so far from phys' reality nor us phys' beings as he lived his last life in the 60's as Frank . The point is that i am trying to humanise or bring closer to us humans the Seth personality + the fact that it was not Seth as we humans know him who originated the material but his higher self. You know , sort of humanises Seth himself, ok ?
            Obviously i agree with what you wrote but this is far too often the message put across by sethians , that the most important or significant part of our existence is non phys'l + seemingly out of reach to us ordinary folks.   But the whole point is that our Seth was phys' + not so long ago + that it is thru the phys' self we must work to gain a better understanding of our non phys' aspect.


          I mean if you want to talk about the non phys' aspects then tell me old bean , what you made of my reply to you about my void states etc ,as you have been v quiet about that since i posted it so i'm not at all sure if you do understand this depth of nonphysicality or if you think its just plain hogwash (which actually is'nt the idea i got from the depth of your question).


           Another thing that bothered me about some sethians is this idea about self sacrifice ,as most sethians i have spoken to used to condemn the whole idea offhand simply because of a few remaks Seth made, so they followed it like sheep + could not go beyond it .
           Also the crucifixion , another topic many sethies misunderstand , + what a significant + incredibly important service this was to humanity . What say you Len ?
          Also what think you of the basic + intrinsic religiosity of the human species + even the soul itself?


peace , paul

[LenKop]

Hey Paul, and everyone.


I haven't posted properly for a while, been busy.


You are correct. Your topic is set toward what Seth is/was, where as I answered what he is not (anymore, at least). Sorry.


Regarding the other thread about void states, without hijacking this one too far off axis. My response was to your earlier comments about looking for another forum because perhaps none here understood your concepts. You agreed with me I believe, that it was the ultimate, absolute Source that you were on the journey toward. Not sure how much more I could add to that thread, unless there was something i missed....but this far into typing I'd rather not delete just to check, so I'll do things backward and check after I post....


I don't think its hogwash at all. It's just not what interests me atm. But it doesn't mean I don't have an understanding, even if distant, of your purpose. You said you show your gratitude to ATI by making your journey. I show my gratitude by creating a wonderful reality here in the physical. I prefer the expansive, creative aspect of ATI. I believe we are each unique, and even with reincarnation, aspects of this particular fragment in the scheme of ATI will never quite be the same, nor is the same as it was yesterday, nor will be tomorrow. So I'm diving into this experience as much as i can, as what we create here is being created through us by the Absolute Source...and I'm enjoying the ride.


I agree with using the physical as a learning tool toward what our greater potential holds. It's why forums like this hold a great value. Many who might think they're going mad can discover there are others out there just as crazy.... I think most who delve into these topics, whether it's Seth or someone else, struggle greatly with the idea that there is no real separation, and I think this really goes toward the topic of responsibility....but perhaps that requires another thread.

The cursed smiley changed my font, again...LOL


LK

[voidypaul]

   Hi LenKop ,
              thanks for your reply. I feel i too must offer an apology as i might have been a bit harsh in the way i responded to your post .

              I understand more now of where you are coming from + respect your position + attitudes about your life + interest in the expansive aspect of creation .

              Nevertheless I feel i should point out that ,  expansions + contractions are a part of the same process + probably this is what i have not made clear in my explanations of void states . Each night when we sleep we contract + enter into realms of being that draw us more or less to the source of our being but usually forget this portion of our 'activity' + indeed it will not show up on any graphs of our dreaming  processes in dream labs . We expand when we return + create the dream dramas that then after further 'processing' we remember as dreams .  Also when we meditate we also contract , it is as natural to the self as any expansion is .

             when i had my initial void exp' it included many + various expansions but always after a certain range of expansions is reached the cons' will then contract to be able to access the next 'level' of expansion until  it can go no further , this includes also the void states , there are contractions + expansions within the formless realms even without the aid of thought forms, as can be understood in the Seth 2 material.

             Be that as it may your present interests in expansion is entirely natural to most of humanity as it fits nicely the creation of the ego which is meant to expand until it can contain within itself more space + spacial activity + the contraction states are somewhat fearful to the ego + entirely misunderstood , this is because of the nature of the ego which does not want to let go of what it has built up + feels that it owns .  Obviously in reality there is no such a thing as possession or ownership , its just an ego thing .

             Both contraction + expansion are equal , they are simply a part of the process of spiritual or cons' evolution .  When one can put both on an equal footing in our lives then there is no reality that is ever closed to us .

             As for going to other sites I think that this is just a bit pie in the sky for me . As i said , i've even been to Buddhist forums + as knowledgeable as they are about the make up of reality, they are stuck + entrenched in their previous dogmas on the formless states + very defensive about any other opinions , sad but true . Just another religion to throw on the pile as a burnt offerings haha.

           peace , paul

[BethAnne]

there is no real separation
Jumping from another thread.  I feel that Unity.  When we had a toxic spill on the river I could grasp my unity in that event and how it did positive things on other levels.  But how does one deal with something like radiation.  I'm asking from a technical  view.

[LenKop]

this is because of the nature of the ego which does not want to let go of what it has built up + feels that it owns

I question whether it is a 'natural' state for our ego's to hold on so tightly, or is it simply conditioned.


LK

[LenKop]

Gotta work on my quotes....LOL





LK

[voidypaul]

    Hi LenKop ;

               the ego likes to think it is the self , the only self, which is why we have run into so many difficulties in our civilizations + personally .Seth + others have taught us that there is much more to the self than just the ego + that the ego is actually a production or projection of the inner self to deal with + help recreate phys' reality .
               I believe it is a natural state for the ego to hold on tightly  but i do also agree that it is in our western culture a more conditioned effect than in other cultures like in Asia where they still have a fairly strong tie with spiritual inclinations etc .      We sethians i believe are learning to re-condition the ego to accept greater realities + to let go the tight grip our ego's have on phys' reality at least for a while . Seth thoroughly recommends a regular routine of daily dissociation so that we are not so ego-bound , which lessens stress + worry, making for a healthier life , apart from the poss' of making some sort of inner contact with various portions of the (our) inner self .
           Wish i had a catalog of Seth quotes i could go to but perhaps i can dig some out in the near future .
           Seth has also said that the ego would reach a stage in its growth when it had become confident of its position in phys' reality + could then learn to let go of its dominance , which he indicated was about now.    But if we did not learn to open up the ego then we would run into further difficulties + an unnatural inner war between the inner self's intuitions/intelligence + the ego's reason/intellect which would reflect in a worsening world situation . 
          As yet we are but uncons' co-creators but if we dissociate , meditate , + let go the worries of the world we can help heal ourselves + the world + with  contact with the inner self , can become true cons' co-creators . Seems like a good idea to me .

   peace , paul
           

   

[Deb]

"There is a part of man that Knows, with a capital K. That is the portion of him, of course, that is born and grows to maturity even while the lungs or digestive processes do not read learned treatises on the body's "machinery," so in our book we will hope to arouse within the reader, of whatever persuasion, a kind of subjective evidence, a resonance between ideas and being. Many people write, saying that they feel as if somehow they have always been acquainted with our material—and of course they have, for it represents the inner knowing within each individual."

Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Volume One session 885

[Deb]

From Barrie, on Facebook.

Hi Folks,

Someone named Jan recently asked me a question via email and the topic highlighted a dilemma of sorts as to who or what Seth is. I don't know if "dilemma" is the correct word or not. But here is his question and my answer. Also, I say "his" altho I realize that Jan may be a male or female name. I post it here because it will give others a chance to join in, try to answer Jan's question or respond to my comments as well:

Jan Asks: "Does anyone know whether, in any of the work, Seth said that in one of his physical lives, HE was consciously aware that he created his reality, and made use of that knowledge? I don't remember anything in the main body of work, but I haven't read much in the Early Sessions."

Barrie Responds: I cannot recall ever reading or hearing in class anything like that concerning Seth talking about his physical incarnations. He usually gives some anectodote with some emotional tie to it--which serves as some example for us or make him seem more "human" to us.

If he went through the reincarnation cycle like everyone else, then he would have had to reach the requirements of learning both YCYOR and to do so with helping and not harming others.

This is the confusing as I see it. On the one hand he has explained he has been human hundreds of times or more, with his "last" incarnation being Frank Withers in the 1950s or so. I can't remember the dates. He has also explained that he is reincarnatedly connected to both Jane and Rob--and without that connection he could not come thru as clearly as he does with as little distortion as is possible on our plane--and sometimes he says he would not be able to come thru at all.

He did say that Jane stemmed from a probable self of one of his incarnations.

Jane (Intro to Seth Speaks): Seth calls me Ruburt, and Rob, Joseph. These names represent our entire personalities as distinguished from our present physically oriented selves.

Seth (Session 47; CAPS originally underlined): "Truth contains no distortions, and this material with all my best efforts, and with yours (Rob & Jane), of necessity must contain distortions merely in order to make itself exist at all on your plane. I will never condone an attitude in which either you or Ruburt maintain that you hold undiluted truth through these sessions. Any material, to exist on your plane, MUST TO SOME EXTENT DONE THE ATTIRE of your plane, and in the very entry to your plane it must be somewhat distorted. I must use phrases with which your minds are somewhat familiar. I must use Ruburt's subconscious to some degree. If I did not take advantage of your own camouflage system, then YOU would not be able to understand the material at this time. Inner data, even this, MUST make its entry through some distortion. We must always work together, but you must never consider me as an INFALLIBLE source. This material is more valid than any material possible on your plane, but it is nevertheless to some degree conditioned by the camouflage attributes of the plane."

Seth (Session 54): "Your Ruburt was, indeed, Seth. Your Ruburt spoke with my voice, for it was his voice. Ruburt is NOT myself NOW, in his present life; he is nevertheless an extension and materialization of THE SETH that I WAS AT ONE TIME. Ruburt was myself, Seth, many centuries ago, but he grew, evolved and expanded...He is now a personality that was one of the PROBABLE personalities into which Seth could grow. I represent another. I am another. Ruburt represents, as is, a personality formed by that Seth which was myself--by focusing upon and using a peculiar set of attributes and abilities. To make it simpler, perhaps, we split--this being necessary always so that various possibilities can be brought into action."

Seth (Session 58): Ruburt and myself are offshoots of the same entity. The difference in time is but a
camouflage distortion. The entity was a particularly strong one, and many of its egos have made the decision to turn into entities...And now, my dear patient Joseph, may I tell you that you are also part of that same entity -- and this is one of the reasons why I am able to communicate with you both."

Seth (Session 444): "In spiritualistic terms, Ruburt would be [Jane's] the guardian angel, you see."

Barrie Comments: I threw in that "guardian angel" part because it is interesting and Seth does not speak in those terms, but did so here. It is about Jane's relationship to Ruburt, and not her or Ruburt's relationship to Seth.

OK, so here is the confusing part...on the OTHER hand...Seth2 has said that Seth was sent here a very long time ago. Seth says that Seth2 is to him, as he is to us. Seth2 has never been physical and has been involved in giving human beings the blue prints about how to actually create physical reality--and much more. Seth we cannot even understand Seth2 or his experience--without Seth translating him for us. In any case, Seth2 said:


Seth II (ESP Class, 10-14-69): "Seth as you know him, is distant in my own past, a reality that I scarcely remember. He is a portion of my reality and as such he continually exists. He does now exist in his own reality. Yet to me, all that is past. I am not only what he will one day become in your terms I am far more -- and in me your Seth, while remaining a developing identity on his own, is a distant memory in my consciousness. WE SENT HIM TO YOU in your terms in some indescribably distant past. He entered your universe in a reality I find difficult to remember. He gave guidance to your kind for eons of your time. I do not sufficiently understand the experience in which you are presently involved, in your terms.

"We are involved in forming creations, realities, consciousness -- worlds beyond your comprehension. Within these, Seth as you know him is a shadow within my awareness. Yet he is a part of what I was. There seems to be a dim connection between him and the Ruburt that you know.

"We do not deal with sensory data, as you know it. We form the realities, we give birth to universes but within you now I can tell you is the breath of creativity -- the source of All That Is of which you are a part."

Barrie NOW Comments: So, IF Seth is like a person who had hundreds or more of incarnations and then became an entity, so to speak...then how could have Seth2 have "sent him to (us)...in some indescribably distant past"? And how could he have given "guidance to your kind for eons of your time."

So, that's the dilemma of understanding so far--of where I am at with all this.

I hope this helps.

Be well & happy,
Barrie

[Batfan007]

I don't get it.

Simultaneous time, not linear time.

So what is the dilemma?

If it's all happening Now, where is the contradiction?

If an entity (I'm assuming, I don't know) exists in a timeless state, it sends a portion of itself into a dimension where time exists, it grows portions of itself through time.
Outside of "time" as we know, what changes? There is just the ever present, or Being?

---

Anyhow, I'm just throwing out Q's to think about, not offering any kind of answer, nor do I understand the Question, or where the contradiction lies?
To me no contradiction exists in any of that text, it's all in parallel simultaneously.

[Sena]

Barrie NOW Comments: So, IF Seth is like a person who had hundreds or more of incarnations and then became an entity, so to speak...then how could have Seth2 have "sent him to (us)...in some indescribably distant past"? And how could he have given "guidance to your kind for eons of your time."

So, that's the dilemma of understanding so far--of where I am at with all this.

We can only speculate about these things because they are above our level. My speculation goes like this:
Seth Two is "like God the Father" in the sense that he never had a human incarnation, and only in that sense. I am not saying that Seth Two is All That Is.
Seth is "like Christ or the Buddha" in the sense that he has had many human incarnations, and only in that sense.
(There is the speculation that Jesus Christ was a reincarnation of the Buddha:
http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/jesus/buddha.html)

[Deb]

If an entity (I'm assuming, I don't know) exists in a timeless state, it sends a portion of itself into a dimension where time exists, it grows portions of itself through time.
Outside of "time" as we know, what changes? There is just the ever present, or Being?

Honestly I had a hard time understanding what Barrie was getting at, it's way too deep for me. My hands are full enough with just managing the present. If time is simultaneous, to me that means there was no beginning and will be no end, which I can't wrap my head around. Or the ever present, with no changes. I could drive myself nuts thinking about this stuff. I have this vision of me going off into the mountains like John Belushi in Continental Divide, so I can figure all of this stuff out with no distractions. Although I probably don't remember the movie the way I think I do.

Seth Two is "like God the Father" in the sense that he never had a human incarnation

Since I've not read a lot of the Seth books yet, I don't know if there's a higher power mentioned, something above and beyond Seth Two. My sense that there was.

I've always had a hard time contemplating infinity—the contemplation of higher levels of consciousness is just as difficult. (The line, "A bear of little brain" (Winnie the Pooh) comes to mind in describing my feeling of my abilities.) Infinity goes backwards and forwards and outwards in all directions to no beginning, no end. Yeesh. Now what do I do with that?

[Batfan007]

The human intellect is incapable of knowing/reasoning infinity imo.
However, experimentally we can directly experience glimpses, visions, various enlightenments etc. But they will always be True, but Partial.
I imagine even Seth would struggle with "infinity" as by definition it is beyond conception.
Does not mean we should not try though.

[Deb]

This is going to be painfully long. Sorry, but it seemed appropriate to the topic and so I just kept typing... I found this in Adventures in Consciousness, Appendix I. The quotes are attributed to a Class Session dated Tuesday, January 29, 1974. I did leave out a little bit that I didn't think added much information, so there are some ellipses that are mine. But unfortunately there are some in the original text too. In the quote to Rick, the first paragraph is so lyrical, beautiful. It reminds me of my all-time favorite quote. A little preview: "For you are, and because you are, all being is. Your lips curve and tremble, and the muscles move across your face, and as they do the wind blows in other universes." Sigh. Reminds me of lyrics from the Andreas Vollenweider song, Painter's Waltz: "The wind took my footprints/A poet took my heart." Seth sure had a way with words.

So now, from Seth:

"Who is Seth? I put this question to you. And what magic is worked here that you work, and that we all work together? Now I will tell you this: One the one hand, I am someone you do not know, lost before the annals of times as you understand it. On the one hand, that is what I am. And that is a loaded sentence.

On the other hand, I am yourself... so through me do you view and meet the selves that you are, and so I rise, in your terms, from the power and antiquity and the glory of your own being, projected outward into the world of time from a universe in which time is meaningless.

So I am what each of you are individually, and I am what each of you are, en masse. And I am what the world is, individually and en masse.

So when I speak with my voice, with this voice, I speak with all of your voices, and with the knowledge that each of you has, and with the knowledge the world has. And so, what you know is translated into the area of space and time that you presently recognize. So I bring up within you great rushes of emotion and being that arise from the knowledge of your own existence. I allow you to reach portions of your own reality that exist beyond space and time. Each of you, then, do project upon me those characteristics that are your own in other terms, and so I am a multidimensional being as you are multidimensional beings...

I am myself, but apart from that, I am also what you are. If all of you at this moment denied my reality, I would still be what I am, and you would be less. I would be less also, but I would still be what I am, and you would still be what you are. And you might find other ways of contacting what you are. You would not be lost. Nor would I.

Through me, you sense your reality, beyond the reality that you presently know. Through you, I remember my reality in your terms, and yet I can never count on it—it is not done and finished, for as you grow, I grow. Seth II grows. You grow beyond me, beyond my reality even, into other worlds that you do not presently know, and I grow into other existences where we cannot meet. But here, we meet...

...I offer steps, alive and glowing, that lead you to the furthest reaches of yourself. These are not steps created by a god or devil or guru, but sent out and projected by you through the centuries; steps born of your living selves, that lead into the knowledge of your ever-growing beings.

And so, therefore, with joy do I speak to you, with the joy that is alive and knowing. I speak with the voices that, in your terms, come from centuries yet unborn. Yet these are the voices that you, yourselves, have whispered from the fossils of your being, when you were (in your terms, now) unthinking selves on sunlit cliffs in worlds unknowing. And projected by your desire, these voices then speak to you and urge you to your own fulfillment...

You have allowed 'something' to become transparent, so that you can step through yourselves. Use the energy of this voice as a lifeline, and as a road and as a message, and follow it in whatever way you choose, into your own experience, into your own greater reality."

- - -

[spoken directly to Rick Stack]

"You move your hand and you touch your face, and what realities do you stir, and what seasons do you cause to fall upon other worlds—and how, as you lift your finger and touch your face—do you stir ponds of reality? What frogs sit by the ponds that you have stirred, and what winds blow with the power of your thoughts? How your reality stretches out from this moment to touch all worlds! For you are, and because you are, all being is. Your lips curve and tremble, and the muscles move across your face, and as they do the wind blows in other universes.

Your reality is now, and your thoughts are footprints in other worlds. You leave messages when you so much as lift your head of say, 'Hello.' And listening, others lift their heads and say, 'What a strange wind blows.' So do you, hearing my voice say, 'What a strange wind blows. From whence come these winds?'

Listen to me know and in so doing, listen to yourselves. You 'come through' as I come through. You are not non-beings in a god's dream. You speak and the god listens. You are the god that listens. From you, that god, that All That Is, learns what is happening in your corner of reality. You send messages 'backward' through the fabric of time and space which is also, in your terms now, the fabric of that god's being. As again, the smallest cell in your finger or toe sends messages to you, and you, even if unconsciously, make adjustments in response—so in those terms and using that analogy, do you send messages to that god as to what is happening in your corner of the universe. And that god makes adjustments accordingly.

- - -

Within yourself is a history of all being: the birth of consciousness, in your terms, ever being born. The grace with which you sit before me is so secure, so nonchalant in its physical integrity, yet what small selves uphold you? And yet how you ignominiously ignore the cells within you as minute, and grant to them none of the functions of creativity and development that are your own. But let them flicker out one by one, and what happens to the proud physical moon of your brain? In your terms, their existence is as sacred as your own. And through the scrutiny of your eyes... do the gods know themselves and live through the smallest hair upon your head.

And indeed, through me now is Seth II given a voice, a voice you can understand; and a lifeline is being thrown to you that you have thrown down to yourselves from a time in your terms not yet born, and yet have created it... I am the voice of your world in its past and its future. Because of that, I am your own voice in its past and its future.

The rocks cannot speak words that you hear, and you do not listen when your cells speak to you, and so I speak humbly for them, and translate for you the archeology of your being. Here then, the fossilings within your spirit speak."

[voidypaul]

Ahh the beautiful, poetic + expansive side of cons's . Its always so uplifting to read this sort of material.  Thanks for posting it Deb.

    It  makes the void states + ultimate contractions seem rather bland + inaccessible by comparison + yet as Seth says in your post,  all of this , including his own self, comes from that mysterious non physical realm that Seth leads one into when he says '' I allow you to reach portions of your own reality that exist beyond space and time'' + it is those 'areas' beyond space+time in which Seth2 dwells (who has never been a physical being though he is the source of the Seth entity/soul + our manifest universe itself), + whose massive energy + loving intent  maintains + upholds infinite such realities as ours, in the blink of an eye .

     If only i could wax as poetical + lyrical about the void states + contractions of cons' as Seth does about the expansiveness of cons', which is so seductive + evocative of the godhood within us all .

    Again, void + nonbeig seem like some deadly virus in contrast, haha.

     I'm the mad one who swims upstream like some crazy little fishee trying to reach his source, where i have spawned + died infinite times, hehe .

    There is only one nonbeing (which Seth describes) + all others are an anathema + a pox on the soul as Seth also says. So i never ask anyone to meditate on or try to seek out such states as too many dangers can arise from this, though an intellectual even intuitional understanding of such states may be useful to some in their future, for as Seth has said, from all expansions (cosmic or not), come contractions. And these cycles go on endlessly throughout reality.

    The buddhists of course (as Seth has stated) do have an understanding of such issues (as do the Hindus,pralaya), though they call Seths nonbeing (which is my final void state) cessation jhana (a misnomer i believe), before they achieve the state of Nirvana (which i call Source + Seth ATI + Hindu's Parabrhaman), which is all of creation + more than all that it has created, that 'extral' value Seth introduced to us, amongst other incredible concepts, + which other religious mysteries may not have included. But overall the more progressive Hindu + Buddhist philosophies + cosmogonies are easily interchangeable with the concepts that Seth has espoused but Seths are more easily digested by the western mind.

    The 3 dilemmas Seth describes are of course the ''initial'' expansions + contractions (of ATI + all other pyramid gestalts ) which create all identities + self cons's + the universal systems in which they dwell via gestalt formations of the cu's + their transformation into the ee units Seth speaks of.

    Going to sleep, dreaming + waking are expansions + contractions of us manifest beings, even of the atoms + molecules
    The pulsating or blinking on + off of all of reality, in pure energy terms, are expansions + contractions
    The origional non physical beings such as Seth2 + the pyramid gestalts , also expand + contract in their formless realities (in terms of intensities, Seths terms, rather than in space or time)
    And as Seth says, who knows what was the 'original' expansion or contraction that brought ATI into being, not even ATI himself knows but continuously searches His own origins in the moment point of His own Simultaneous + Divine Subjective Existence, (which always + simultaneously finds its objective materialisation somewhere in reality).

   My experiences  may be more in line with the Buddhists jhana though my void states somewhat (+ importantly) differ from the Buddhist jhana/nirvana but Seths various intensities of the undifferentiated field + the 3 dilemmas are pretty much the same thing, + i am in agreement with Seth that the Buddhists generally (but not all), do not see the eternal validity of the soul, which he rails against when he talks of nirvana as some sort of snuffing out of the soul (a depressing madness to even contemplate, much like the mainstream scientific ideas of the soul + cons').   It is all as Seth says, a more circular thing (as do the Hindu's in their pralaya cycles + Parabrahman) + true nonbeing will always ultimately bring one back into being, as the true inner self expands again after its apparent + seeming final contraction (into nonbeing), it ''comes back again'' or reawakens to itself or is re awoken + ultimately returns to  the expansions that Seth describes in Debs post.   Or not , as it may stay in ATI or Source or Nirvana or Parabrahman, a non returner as they say, perhaps even to embark again in the formation of a 'new' pyramid gestalt, who knows, i often wonder.

    Seths nonbeing (+ void) , also found in other mystery schools if you dig deep enough, + which is not a nothingness nor extinction of the self, is a transcendent state that goes beyond all  + any manifest being entirely. It is the ultimate contradiction to the rational mind but it is a supreme reality. It is not a thing or state that can be adequately described in any terms , though one must try + Seths interpretation is my favorite, as uncluttered as his teachings are from all other minor gods + deities + not bound by the foul dogmas that have grown about the origional teachings of the Christ + Buddha + other religious figureheads.

    The new Christ will come + teach those who are willing, to directly contact their own entities. What more does He need to do, as there will be no question in the minds of those He teaches, who He IS + who they really ARE, + they will experience these greater realities immediately + in no uncertain terms + then they too will go out + teach as they will be filled with the unbridled joy of their being + true knowledge of themselves + the transcendent/immanent ATI + the world will begin to change for the good.                  Cool man .

      regards + peace , paul

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Here's another insight into who or what was Seth.  Take a look at the interrelationships that exist between and amongst, Jane, Seth, Frank Watts and Mary who lived in the in 4th century, B.C.


In the Early Sessions, Book 1, Session 3, pages 17 and 18, Frank Watts tells Rob and Jane that in a past life, in Mesopania, in the fourth century B.C, Rob was a woman who had 4 children.  Frank Watts also says that in that existence, he (Frank Watts) was Rob's sister, Mary, and that Jane was their brother, whose name was, Seth.


In the Early Sessions, Book 3, Session 54, pages 17 and 18, in response to this, Seth says the following:

"Your Ruburt was, indeed, Seth. Your Ruburt spoke with my voice, for it was his voice."

"Ruburt is not myself now, in his present life; he is nevertheless an extension and materialization of the Seth that I was at one time."

"Ruburt is now the result of the Seth that I once was, for I have changed since then. Ruburt represents, and is, a personality formed by that Seth which was myself, by focusing upon and using a peculiar set of attributes and abilities. To make it simpler, perhaps, we split, this being necessary always so that various possibilities can be brought into action."

"Ruburt has changed since then, and so have I. And yet we are bound together, and no invasion occurs because in one way of speaking our psychic territory is the same."

"My own emotional feeling, you see, goes outward, which is away from Ruburt often, since basically we are tempted to think of ourselves as one, though actually our roots are merely the same."

[voidypaul]

Hi jbseth ,

           excellent quotes , obviously you are well read in the Seth material .
           It would also be interesting to hear of your perspnal opinions about these relationships + how they might apply to your own idea of reincarnation , the entity etc .

           Unfotunately for me , altho i am fairly well read myself , i have never catalogued any of the material + don't have an encyclopedic memory but try where i can to provide quotes for what i say i get from Seth . 

           I belive Seth has said that his own prime identity or entity was one of the 1st to be released in the ''initial'' act of creation of ATI , so an extremely ancient entity indeed , this i suppose would be Seth2 (maybe even a S3or4)who has never been a phys' being but helped along with other entities to create + seed the phys' univ' in the 1st place + even helps to maintain it to this very day. Much on Seth2 can be found in ES 8 sess' 407 onwards
           This is sort of like the post you made on the reinc' of the Christ entity (whom i beieve Seth also said was one of the prime identities in the psychic gestalt 1st released into actuality) + the complexity of interrelationships that exist , not just in the reinc' field but also to do with the countepart system of simultaneous incar's in a single time period .  Its funny tho , i dont remember Seth ever having spoken of his own counterparts . It gets even more complex when one factors in the probability sys' also , starts to go toward infinity at this point .But Seth says that reinc' is just probabilities in a time context anyway .

          I remember when i 1st introduced the fact that the Seth material , or the bulk of it was in fact channeled by Seth from Seth2 + how alarmed some people became that i had stated this . Also the idea that ''our'' Seth had only just recently finished his reinc' cycle , ie F Watts , especially in light of the fact that Seth has given us so much incredible info on all things to do with the reality of the mind blowing inf' creative acts of ATI .

          One of the other reasons why i dont believe that Christ (or Seth) was an incar' as Krisna is that he did not seem to have any great awareness of the ancient Hindu spiritual philosophy  as i think he would have given them some credit for their achievements as he did with the Christ to a fair degree + the Buddhists, even tho this was only partial .  In fact the hindu cretion myths are v similar to Seths. Unfortunately the Bud's dont really have one altho they are quite correct on the conpounded (gestalt) nature of the self .

          anyway hope you keep well , peace , paul

[jbseth]

One of the other reasons why i dont believe that Christ (or Seth) was an incar' as Krisna is that he did not seem to have any great awareness of the ancient Hindu spiritual philosophy  as i think he would have given them some credit for their achievements as he did with the Christ to a fair degree + the Buddhists, even tho this was only partial .  In fact the hindu cretion myths are v similar to Seths. Unfortunately the Bud's dont really have one altho they are quite correct on the conpounded (gestalt) nature of the self .

Hi voidypaul,

This is in response to your comment above.  In chapter 20 of the book, "The God of Jane", Jane Roberts includes the latter part of Session 876, August 27, 1979, 9:12 PM Monday. In this session, Seth provides, I think, some of his most significant comments about Jesus and the birth of Christianity. Below is some of what Seth says in this session.


"Some of those early Christian ideas were a conglomeration of other beliefs, even while they served to build upon Jewish lore most deeply.

"There were, indeed, several 'Christs,' several people whose preaching and exploits merged to form the composite figure historically known as Christ. There are all kinds of contradictions in the Bible, and in Christ's own attitudes as depicted, because there were more Christs than one."

"Some of the [Christian] heritage was of Indian origin. Reincarnation was definitely a part of those early beliefs."


Then, after continuing on for a while on this topic, on the next page, Seth says the following.


"Christianity was, then, a rather rick blend of beliefs that were gradually weeded out. You had many probable roads that Christianity could have followed. Each of them represented various probable developments in culture and philosophy; and each of those developments, of course, would have given you a different present. Each of those alternatives has happened also."

[Sena]

Some of the [Christian] heritage was of Indian origin.

jbseth, thanks for finding this quote.

[Sena]

Seth was Frank Watts in his last incarnation here. Poor old Frank most definately got the short end of the stick in this deal . Most everyone i have heard spk about Seth including former class students, does'nt even bother to mention Frank + yet he was Seths last incarnation + I think it is actually v important that he does get a mention + the recognition he deserves .

I thought I would revive this thread started in 2016 by voidypaul, as I think the topic of Frank Withers is rather important (misnamed Frank Watts in the above quote). It does seem that Seth had a rather low opinion of Frank as is evident in the quote below:

""Frank Withers, can we refer back to you on any specific question in the future?" YES. I PREFER NOT TO BE CALLED FRANK WITHERS. THAT PERSONALITY WAS RATHER COLORLESS." (from "The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/0UPuv5X

The conventional view of reincarnation, as understood by most Buddhists for instance, is that one makes "progress" from one incarnation to the next, finally reaching a state of enlightenment. Seth is telling us something very different. Here is someone who claims to have been a Minor Pope, ending up in his final incarnation as a rather colorless personality who lived in Elmira and died in the 1940's. This is rather puzzling.

One solution I can think of is in terms of the "matrix" referred to on another thread. On this model, the final incarnation is like the final piece of the jigsaw that completes the picture. So the final piece does not have to be fantastic, it just needs to fit.

A Gospel quote springs to mind:

"Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone." (Matthew 21:42)

(@voidypaul would have been happy with the Christian reference!)

[Deb]

Excellent, happy to see this great topic reincarnated.

The conventional view of reincarnation, as understood by most Buddhists for instance, is that one makes "progress" from one incarnation to the next, finally reaching a state of enlightenment. Seth is telling us something very different. Here is someone who claims to have been a Minor Pope, ending up in his final incarnation as a rather colorless personality who lived in Elmira and died in the 1940's. This is rather puzzling.

My understanding of reincarnation was just that—making progress until a personality is successful at becoming perfect and enlightened. But what I've gotten from Seth is that while yes, we come here with certain goals and lessons in mind, we're not here to make linear progression up the ladder to success and enlightenment. Success is subjective as far as I'm concerned. Or should be.

Seth was incarnated as Watts/Withers* ( https://findingseth.com/q/watts/  https://findingseth.com/q/withers/ ) for a reason, and it apparently was not an enjoyable experience for Seth. But it seems the lesson was learned. At least to a degree, Seth could had more compassion for poor Frank. We are also here to enrich the experiences of our entities and ultimately ATI, in it's never-ending state of becoming.

"Jane chose circumstances this life to test own patience, to compensate earlier temper. I was Frank Watts to learn humility. Caution, pride can destroy much. The stupid are not to be scorned because we must all learn humility."
—TES1 Session 4 December 8, 1963

Here's an oldie but goodie about why we reincarnate:

"Your spirit joined itself with flesh, and in flesh, to experience a world of incredible richness, to help create a dimension of reality of colors and of form. Your spirit was born in flesh to enrich a marvelous area of sense awareness, to feel energy made into corporeal form. You are here to use, enjoy, and express yourself through the body. You are here to aid in the great expansion of consciousness. You are not here to cry about the miseries of the human condition, but to change them when you find them not to your liking through the joy, strength and vitality that is within you; to create the spirit as faithfully and beautifully as you can in flesh."
—NoPR Chapter 2: Session 615, September 18, 1972

*From Mary's notes, his correct name is Watts, but was maybe changed to Withers in some of the books for privacy reasons. Pseudonyms were used a lot in the early books, such as for class members or other people mentioned, either at their request or as a courtesy.

[LarryH]

Here is someone who claims to have been a Minor Pope, ending up in his final incarnation as a rather colorless personality who lived in Elmira and died in the 1940's. This is rather puzzling.

I think we have remember that, as in the Oversoul 7 books, the "order" of incarnations does not necessarily fall in our historical order. For all we know, Seth might have had a life in our future that was his "first" life in terms of development or progression. Also, let's not forget that Seth, while claiming to have been a minor pope, he also said that he was corrupt in that life. And the Watts/Withers life to learn humility may have been to balance the attitude that he may have had as a corrupt pope.

[usmaak]

Here is someone who claims to have been a Minor Pope, ending up in his final incarnation as a rather colorless personality who lived in Elmira and died in the 1940's. This is rather puzzling.

I think we have remember that, as in the Oversoul 7 books, the "order" of incarnations does not necessarily fall in our historical order. For all we know, Seth might have had a life in our future that was his "first" life in terms of development or progression. Also, let's not forget that Seth, while claiming to have been a minor pope, he also said that he was corrupt in that life. And the Watts/Withers life to learn humility may have been to balance the attitude that he may have had as a corrupt pope.

I was trying to say this about time but aborted the attempt.  You did a much better job of saying it.

I've noticed that many people who say that they remember past lives talk about being someone famous or being in a position of power.  In the billions (trillions?) of lives that have lived since recorded history, there have been an infinitesimally small number of popes, minor or otherwise.  Seems like the chances of being even a minor pope are tiny.  If reincarnation is real, most people would live a number of absolutely unknown lives of no consequence.  I'd think.

[LarryH]

I've noticed that many people who say that they remember past lives talk about being someone famous or being in a position of power.  In the billions (trillions?) of lives that have lived since recorded history, there have been an infinitesimally small number of popes, minor or otherwise.  Seems like the chances of being even a minor pope are tiny.  If reincarnation is real, most people would live a number of absolutely unknown lives of no consequence.  I'd think.

I have heard interviews on Coast-to-Coast of hypnotherapists who conduct past-life regressions, and when asked if anyone uncovers a past life of a famous historical figure, they say that it is very rare. There will always be delusional people who claim that they were Cleopatra or Napoleon (or who claim that they "are" Paul McCartney, as was mentioned elsewhere here). But it appears not to happen much in hypnotic regressions. If people hear the question, "Why do people who believe in reincarnation think they were someone famous?" often enough, they might not question the premise. Why are all the people who see UFOs backward uneducated drunken hayseeds? We've all heard variations on that one, too, yet it's demonstrably false. 

[usmaak]

"Why do people who believe in reincarnation think they were someone famous?" often enough, they might not question the premise. Why are all the people who see UFOs backward uneducated drunken hayseeds? We've all heard variations on that one, too, yet it's demonstrably false. 

Maybe because they've seen it on enough television shows.  Television programs us.

[Tob]

Excellent, happy to see this great topic reincarnated.

The conventional view of reincarnation, as understood by most Buddhists for instance, is that one makes "progress" from one incarnation to the next, finally reaching a state of enlightenment. Seth is telling us something very different. Here is someone who claims to have been a Minor Pope, ending up in his final incarnation as a rather colorless personality who lived in Elmira and died in the 1940's. This is rather puzzling.

My understanding of reincarnation was just that—making progress until a personality is successful at becoming perfect and enlightened. But what I've gotten from Seth is that while yes, we come here with certain goals and lessons in mind, we're not here to make linear progression up the ladder to success and enlightenment. Success is subjective as far as I'm concerned. Or should be.

Seth was incarnated as Watts/Withers* ( https://findingseth.com/q/watts/  https://findingseth.com/q/withers/ ) for a reason, and it apparently was not an enjoyable experience for Seth. But it seems the lesson was learned. At least to a degree, Seth could had more compassion for poor Frank. We are also here to enrich the experiences of our entities and ultimately ATI, in it's never-ending state of becoming.

"Jane chose circumstances this life to test own patience, to compensate earlier temper. I was Frank Watts to learn humility. Caution, pride can destroy much. The stupid are not to be scorned because we must all learn humility."
—TES1 Session 4 December 8, 1963

Here's an oldie but goodie about why we reincarnate:

"Your spirit joined itself with flesh, and in flesh, to experience a world of incredible richness, to help create a dimension of reality of colors and of form. Your spirit was born in flesh to enrich a marvelous area of sense awareness, to feel energy made into corporeal form. You are here to use, enjoy, and express yourself through the body. You are here to aid in the great expansion of consciousness. You are not here to cry about the miseries of the human condition, but to change them when you find them not to your liking through the joy, strength and vitality that is within you; to create the spirit as faithfully and beautifully as you can in flesh."
—NoPR Chapter 2: Session 615, September 18, 1972

*From Mary's notes, his correct name is Watts, but was maybe changed to Withers in some of the books for privacy reasons. Pseudonyms were used a lot in the early books, such as for class members or other people mentioned, either at their request or as a courtesy.

"Nevertheless, much of the Watts material was valid. The distortions, too numerous to mention here, were the result of inexperience not only on Ruburt's part, but also on the part of the personality who did live and was called Frank Watts. He was a personality from my entity, entirely independent from me and from my control, as I have explained that such personalities are." (session 85)

"Energy itself is continually new—event, and motion, and no particular pattern will suffice it for long. Energy is self-renewing, and indefinite duration of pattern would lead to dead ends. Energy always builds. Identity, again, is not dependent upon matter. Energy propels and carries along with it, its own traces. Identity, being independent of matter, is then not finished when the particular physical pattern is no longer created. Energy while being propulsive, is also retentive. It retains what you may call memory of previous gestalts. Capsule comprehension exists even in the smallest particle of energy, and even within the smallest particle of energy there exists all possibilities of development and creation. A psychic gestalt is dependent upon matter, not for its identity but merely for its survival in the physical plane. Psychic gestalts or identities or individualities are for all practical purposes immortal. They may join other gestalts but they will never be less than they once were. Identity then is never broken down. Any apparent breaking down is never an actual fact, as the personality could be thought of as a breaking down of the entity; but this is not so. The personality did not exist as such before its creation by the entity, and once it becomes an identity, it retains that individuality. Earlier it was merely a possibility, as for example a painting that you may paint next year is now only a possibility." (session 62).

Seth does compare individual 're'- incarnations with the concentration of something similar to 'frozen light' onto a specific focus. You could also think of a construction of a near infinite number of cameras pointing into all possible directions, but the idea of 'frozen light', temporarily focusing on a specific 'point or location', i.e. similar to a directed laser can be more easily understood. 'Identity' is the key term. It looks that identity has an 'individual' beginning, by fully or partially taking over the individuality of the entity, but no end. Frank Watts was not Seth, but both have the same entity. He lived to compensate deficits of other incarnations (had by the entity, not by Frank Watts) and he did that for the entity and for the sake of the entity, not for Seth.

[Sena]

He lived to compensate deficits of other incarnations (had by the entity, not by Frank Watts) and he did that for the entity and for the sake of the entity, not for Seth.

Tob, I quite agree with you that Frank Watts lived to compensate deficits of other incarnations, but I am under the impression that Seth IS the entity:

"We are Seth, and whenever we have spoken we have been known as Seth. The entity had its beginning before the emergence of your time.

It was instrumental, with many other entities, in the early formation of energy into physical form. We are not alone in this endeavor, for through your centuries other entities like us have also appeared and spoken.

Our entity is composed of multitudinous selves with their own identities, many of whom have worked in this behalf. Their material and messages will always be basically the same, though the circumstances and times and places of their communications may be colored accordingly.

You need not be concerned. (Eyes open, slitted.) You have your own situation and your own conditions to deal with. We taught man to speak before the tongue knew syllables. We adopt whatever personality characteristics seem pertinent, for in our own reality we have a bank of complete inner selves, and we are all Seth.

Again, there are many others like us. We attempt to translate realities into terms that you can comprehend. We change our face and form but we are always the one. We are therefore always a part of the one entity which is the Seth entity. (Long pause at 9:30.)

[... 1 paragraph ...]

Seth as you know him will not be reincarnated, but other portions of our entity will be born in flesh, for we have a part in all worlds and all realities. We are among the most ancient of entities in your terms.

[... 6 paragraphs ...]

(It took a while. After fifteen minutes I had to get her a cigarette, talk to her to keep her awake, etc. However, she said she was not and hadn't been, sleepy. Instead she had been "lost" again; she had a feeling of suspension among Seth, his entity, and herself, her own voice. She was not frightened, and knew I would help her.

[... 9 paragraphs ...]

These Seths, this entity, was once a part of old earth gods, as Ruburt wrote about them years ago."

—TES8 Session 419 June 26, 1968

[Tob]

He lived to compensate deficits of other incarnations (had by the entity, not by Frank Watts) and he did that for the entity and for the sake of the entity, not for Seth.

Tob, I quite agree with you that Frank Watts lived to compensate deficits of other incarnations, but I am under the impression that Seth IS the entity:

"We are Seth, and whenever we have spoken we have been known as Seth. The entity had its beginning before the emergence of your time.

It was instrumental, with many other entities, in the early formation of energy into physical form. We are not alone in this endeavor, for through your centuries other entities like us have also appeared and spoken.

Our entity is composed of multitudinous selves with their own identities, many of whom have worked in this behalf. Their material and messages will always be basically the same, though the circumstances and times and places of their communications may be colored accordingly.

You need not be concerned. (Eyes open, slitted.) You have your own situation and your own conditions to deal with. We taught man to speak before the tongue knew syllables. We adopt whatever personality characteristics seem pertinent, for in our own reality we have a bank of complete inner selves, and we are all Seth.

Again, there are many others like us. We attempt to translate realities into terms that you can comprehend. We change our face and form but we are always the one. We are therefore always a part of the one entity which is the Seth entity. (Long pause at 9:30.)

[... 1 paragraph ...]

Seth as you know him will not be reincarnated, but other portions of our entity will be born in flesh, for we have a part in all worlds and all realities. We are among the most ancient of entities in your terms.

[... 6 paragraphs ...]

(It took a while. After fifteen minutes I had to get her a cigarette, talk to her to keep her awake, etc. However, she said she was not and hadn't been, sleepy. Instead she had been "lost" again; she had a feeling of suspension among Seth, his entity, and herself, her own voice. She was not frightened, and knew I would help her.

[... 9 paragraphs ...]

These Seths, this entity, was once a part of old earth gods, as Ruburt wrote about them years ago."

—TES8 Session 419 June 26, 1968

Yes, maybe. Over many years I also thought that Seth was the entity. (He is like a magician, so he must be the entity, etc.) Not so clear any more to me.

First of all, it looks that you can take on the characteristics of larger groupings of souls or entities, i.e. 'You' looking at all that is as the 'You'-version of All-That-is (which knows of course much more than the You you are at the end of your individual incarnation). Secondly, it looks that individual personalities can form their own entity provided they are strong enough (Seth). Thus they 'leave' their initial entity-grouping. Others may then join them (from 'outside') if their vibration harmonizes. Accordingly (graphic below), a petal can independently 'decide' to leave the flower and become a full-fledged plant 'in its own right', bypassing the stage of a seed or a seedling.

https://www.gestaltreality.com/2013/05/22/the-multidimensional-self/

So far I could not manage to bring these infos together.

By the way, there is a new Bashar video, the most recent one ('The Infinite Restaurant'). It looks that he is approaching this question by examining how an oversoul does perceive an individual incarnation. I havent' had access to that video, yet.

[Tob]

He lived to compensate deficits of other incarnations (had by the entity, not by Frank Watts) and he did that for the entity and for the sake of the entity, not for Seth.

Tob, I quite agree with you that Frank Watts lived to compensate deficits of other incarnations, but I am under the impression that Seth IS the entity:

"We are Seth, and whenever we have spoken we have been known as Seth. The entity had its beginning before the emergence of your time.

It was instrumental, with many other entities, in the early formation of energy into physical form. We are not alone in this endeavor, for through your centuries other entities like us have also appeared and spoken.

Our entity is composed of multitudinous selves with their own identities, many of whom have worked in this behalf. Their material and messages will always be basically the same, though the circumstances and times and places of their communications may be colored accordingly.

You need not be concerned. (Eyes open, slitted.) You have your own situation and your own conditions to deal with. We taught man to speak before the tongue knew syllables. We adopt whatever personality characteristics seem pertinent, for in our own reality we have a bank of complete inner selves, and we are all Seth.

Again, there are many others like us. We attempt to translate realities into terms that you can comprehend. We change our face and form but we are always the one. We are therefore always a part of the one entity which is the Seth entity. (Long pause at 9:30.)

[... 1 paragraph ...]

Seth as you know him will not be reincarnated, but other portions of our entity will be born in flesh, for we have a part in all worlds and all realities. We are among the most ancient of entities in your terms.

[... 6 paragraphs ...]

(It took a while. After fifteen minutes I had to get her a cigarette, talk to her to keep her awake, etc. However, she said she was not and hadn't been, sleepy. Instead she had been "lost" again; she had a feeling of suspension among Seth, his entity, and herself, her own voice. She was not frightened, and knew I would help her.

[... 9 paragraphs ...]

These Seths, this entity, was once a part of old earth gods, as Ruburt wrote about them years ago."

—TES8 Session 419 June 26, 1968

Yes, maybe. Over many years I also thought that Seth was the entity. (He is like a magician, so he must be the entity, etc.) Not so clear any more to me.

First of all, it looks that you can take on the characteristics of larger groupings of souls or entities, i.e. 'You' looking at all that is as the 'You'-version of All-That-is (which knows of course much more than the You you are at the end of your individual incarnation). Secondly, it looks that individual personalities can form their own entity provided they are strong enough (Seth). Thus they 'leave' their initial entity-grouping. Others may then join them (from 'outside') if their vibration harmonizes. Accordingly (graphic below), a petal can independently 'decide' to leave the flower and become a full-fledged plant 'in its own right', bypassing the stage of a seed or a seedling.

https://www.gestaltreality.com/2013/05/22/the-multidimensional-self/

So far I could not manage to bring these infos together.

By the way, there is a new Bashar video, the most recent one ('The Infinite Restaurant'). It looks that he is approaching this question by examining how an oversoul does perceive an individual incarnation. I havent' had access to that video, yet.

"(At 9:16 Jane said she was waiting to see what developed, that she was getting a hint of the pyramid feeling; which usually means that Seth's entity will speak in place of Seth. See the 406th to 412th sessions for detailed material on the circumstances involving the personality we call Seth's entity."
—TES9 Session 464 February 10, 1969

A 'gestalt' of frozen light which can combine with other 'gestalts' may be a metaphor for the entity. Or the generation of fractals on a computer screen which can then be visited by an avatar. From the above quote one would assume that the 'frozen light' - focus personality Seth is different from the encompassing conglomerate, but these shapes are obviously rather fluid and can change form.

Several times Seth described the individual soul as an activity.

[Sena]

Yes, maybe. Over many years I also thought that Seth was the entity. (He is like a magician, so he must be the entity, etc.) Not so clear any more to me.

First of all, it looks that you can take on the characteristics of larger groupings of souls or entities, i.e. 'You' looking at all that is as the 'You'-version of All-That-is (which knows of course much more than the You you are at the end of your individual incarnation). Secondly, it looks that individual personalities can form their own entity provided they are strong enough (Seth).

Tob, yes it is a fascinating topic, overturning two millennia of Christian theology.

[Bora137]

This is so complicated. Seth says Frank is his incarnation which taught him humility. Then he says Frank is nothing to do with him. Where does that leave Frank? Do entities manufacturer unfortunates in flesh with low skill set and intelligence and give them an adverse set of conditions so they will fail so the entity can learn failure? This means a lot of people struggling in life have been specifically created to struggle. This does not feel like me choosing my life challenges. This feels like an incomplete entity throwing together an unfortunate for the entity's progression. That personality is then left to face many lifetimes in order to work its way out from the unfortunate start it was given. Can this be? Where then is 'you create you own reality' for Frank? In many senses he was designed to fail not for his own lesson but for his entity. I don't like this.

[Sena]

This means a lot of people struggling in life have been specifically created to struggle.

Bora, I don't think that is the Sethian view. We choose our struggles as learning experiences before our incarnation.
I agree that the Frank Withers story is not very clear and is rather confusing.

[Deb]

This is so complicated. Seth says Frank is his incarnation which taught him humility. Then he says Frank is nothing to do with him. Where does that leave Frank?

I agree that the Frank Withers story is not very clear and is rather confusing.

Well just to make things even more confusing... did Seth ever say that Frank Watts/Withers was an actual incarnation of his? Look at these quotes. The very last one is material that I just found today. Talk about timing.

"Frank Withers was a fragment personality of mine. He will continue, himself, to reincarnate and go his own way. Many of us leave fragment personalities as you leave children. Do you follow me?"
—SS Chapter 11: Session 541, July 13, 1970

"Frank Watts did indeed come from the state of sorrow. He was a makeup personality—that is, through Frank Watts I had to make up for past errors. [...] I should not make light of Frank Watts, since almost literally he redeemed me. This plane for Frank Watts was a plane of sorrow."
—TES1 Session 16 January 15, 1964

"Now and then old Frank Watts comes through simply because he is the latest independent materialization, and is used to taking things upon himself."
—TES1 Session 14 January 8, 1964

"Frank Watts was a fathead," he said with obvious satisfaction, even though Frank Watts was a personality fragment of Seth's own entity."
—TES1 Session 11 January 1, 1964

"This first session material was given to us through Frank Watts, however. Frank Watts is a fragment of Seth's entity."
—TES3 Session 101 October 28, 1964

"(Only then a personality fragment of Seth's, named Frank Watts, was speaking to us."
—TES8 Forward By Rob Butts

From 9/26/72's class session, possibly on audio CD01:

"In your book," Jeff said, "you stated that Bruns Martzens in Denmark in the 16th century was your last full reincarnation, and that Frank W. was a fragment personality. I didn't quite get the distinction." Seth answered:

"Frank W. was a fragment personality in that my entire essence was not translated into his reality. Only a small portion of it was. I was seeding, in your terms, a new personality which would then go on its own way. It was my blessing to earth—my last thought—the fragment of me that I left to go ahead, in your terms, in earthly manners. A memory of me so to speak. Does that answer your question?"

So if Frank W. was a cast off, a splinter of Seth's incarnation, rather than an incarnation himself, that would explain that Frank in that existence did not go through the formal choosing of life's settings and experiences. He was a fragment of Seth serving a purpose. Weird. I'm just trying to make sense of this.

The part about Seth being an entity is again not that clear. He did say that he, Jane and Rob (and Frank and no doubt others) shared the same entity, but isn't the greater portion of ourselves our entity/soul, while our earthly existences are merely a portion of the entity? The way we are also ATI? The way leaves are a part of one branch, the branches a part of one tree? Frank could have been just a torn off piece of the leaf known as Seth. 

[Sena]

"Frank Watts did indeed come from the state of sorrow. He was a makeup personality—that is, through Frank Watts I had to make up for past errors. [...] I should not make light of Frank Watts, since almost literally he redeemed me. This plane for Frank Watts was a plane of sorrow."
—TES1 Session 16 January 15, 1964

Deb, it seems to me that Seth could only "make up for past errors" via Frank Watts if Frank was an actual incarnation of Seth. This does not fit with Frank being a fragment persoanlity of Seth. That is why it is confusing.

P.S. I read the following part later. Now it does make sense!:

From 9/26/72's class session, possibly on audio CD01:

"In your book," Jeff said, "you stated that Bruns Martzens in Denmark in the 16th century was your last full reincarnation, and that Frank W. was a fragment personality. I didn't quite get the distinction." Seth answered:

"Frank W. was a fragment personality in that my entire essence was not translated into his reality. Only a small portion of it was. I was seeding, in your terms, a new personality which would then go on its own way. It was my blessing to earth—my last thought—the fragment of me that I left to go ahead, in your terms, in earthly manners. A memory of me so to speak. Does that answer your question?"

I did not know until now that Seth's last full incarnation was in the 16th century. It would seem that the Seth entity is so advanced and powerful (an aeon?) that it is able to make "partial" incarnations.

[Tob]

I think the key to understanding any of these concepts is 'identity' or 'individuality'. Seth was clear that new personalities/incarnations take on the identity of the entity, without diminishing the entity. This is what creation implies. Something is created, not reshuffled. Thus, there is a 'formal' beginning of a personality or personality construct. The newly born being has its own identity which will evolve individually during the lifetime and will be NEVER DESTROYED. Thus the conundrum regarding reincarnating individuals as to what happens with the former 'I' identity is 'solved'. There is no reincarnation in the sense we tend to understand it. All lives take place at the same 'time'. And there are constant interactions among relevant live times and incarnations, meant to cross fertilize each other (Seth's island analogy in UR). But there is no reincarnation.

Nevertheless, 50 000 persons can claim to have been Cleopatra (Bashar) as they can easily plug in into the single real life of Cleopatra which was never lived either by them or other souls from their own entity. The You you are now (the You you think yourself to know) is constantly evolving (creation) and is constantly getting more, nor less. In particular after death (Bashar and Seth). And finally the newly created YOU, newly created by the entity in the same way as a hypothetical picture becomes a real one if a painter decides to materialize a specific idea of a picture (Seth), which does then physically exist, experiences itself as the YOU-aspect of All-that-is. And as there is no time, You are already the You-aspect of All-that-is. That is the reason why it is so easy to plug into the real life of the one single Cleopatra (her alternative and probable lives aside, which are of course as accessible but certainly less outstanding).

The entity or oversoul (Seth, Bashar) contains a large number of individual souls. Actually an infinite or nearly infinite number (Seth). (Not so clear to me what 'nearly infinite' should be). These souls live in the 16th century, the 19th century, the 21st century or the 23rd century on earth. They have or are connected to parallel lives on parallel Earths (Robert Butts, the pilot who was killed in WWII) and they live lives on other planets, as humans, humanoids, or something else. Some of the souls do NOT live on earth as not all of them decide to go through this tough school. They remain in 'spirit' where they do what makes sense to them.

You are not the entity, you are a soul (described by Seth as an activity). The activity is also part of a larger activity which we do not understand (Napoleon on St. Helena and Napoleon as the successful conqueror of the entire continent) (Seth). Kennedy, who was not killed (Seth and Bashar). M. Luther King and Robert Kennedy who were killed because JFK was killed (Bashar).

Part of your soul never leaves spirit, it is only a fraction of the soul which 'materializes' in 3d (Bashar and Seth). Your larger part (the larger part of your soul) never left.  This is why it may be difficult to reach the dead in a seance. They are already in communication with the part of you which never left, and they are not really keen on interacting with the 3d fragment (Bashar). And, by the way, they have their own agenda after death.

The soul is not the entity, it is a part of the entity. But a single soul can become a new entity provided it is strong enough (Seth). There are between 300 000 and 500 000 entities with incarnations on earth (Bashar). Whales are the oversouls of dolphins. Human oversouls could not materialize on earth as there is no proper physical organism to support them. Jesus, Buddha etc. did represent the collective consciousness of entire mankind. These are special cases, as we all know or understand.

The key term is 'identity' or 'individuality'. 'You-ness' has been only used once by Seth. Unfortunately not defined. That's pity. Some lives are one-sided to balance out energetic issues. This does not necessarily mean that the individual perceives that life as a burden or 'punishment'. (Michael Schumacher has an issue with speed. Now he is in coma and doesn't move. Donald Trump's life is certainly imbalanced but I assume he doesn't suffer).  It is us who are overly prepared to step in with concepts such as 'karma' or 'original sin', etc. Investigations show that the happiest people are living in the poorest countries.

The structure of existence is 'nested'. Frank Watts' life can be part of a larger activity, similar to Napoleon or Kennedy. We just don't know that. Because we can't (Seth). Our brains are not designed to understand. They function in a linear mode where information should be processed holistically (Seth).

[Kyle]

"In your book," Jeff said, "you stated that Bruns Martzens in Denmark in the 16th century was your last full reincarnation, and that Frank W. was a fragment personality. I didn't quite get the distinction." Seth answered:

"Frank W. was a fragment personality in that my entire essence was not translated into his reality. Only a small portion of it was. I was seeding, in your terms, a new personality which would then go on its own way. It was my blessing to earth—my last thought—the fragment of me that I left to go ahead, in your terms, in earthly manners. A memory of me so to speak. Does that answer your question?"

I'm trying to understand how one very obvious fact fits into this whole Frank W. question, namely, that Frank W. lived in Elmira, NY of all places!! Is there any mention of this remarkable coincidence anywhere? Does anyone agree that this is an odd coincidence?

[Sena]

I'm trying to understand how one very obvious fact fits into this whole Frank W. question, namely, that Frank W. lived in Elmira, NY of all places!! Is there any mention of this remarkable coincidence anywhere? Does anyone agree that this is an odd coincidence?

Kyle, I wonder whether Seth was aware that a resident of Elmira (Jane) might be willing to act as a transmitter of his ideas? So he wanted to establish a link with Elmira in the person of Frank? Obviously this is speculative. I am not saying that Seth is omniscient, but he may have some telepathic and other paranormal abilities.

[Tob]

This may be helpful in understanding the functional character of Frank Watts for the Seth material:

'Now. The Seth material begins with the Seth material. Period. I will now explain to you where the Watts material came from, its significance, and the reason for its distortions. I did not want to go into this in the beginning. I did not want to impede your progress or hurt your sense of confidence. Again, as far as I am concerned, and I am Seth, the Seth material begins with the Seth material.

Nevertheless, much of the Watts material was valid. The distortions, too numerous to mention here, were the result of inexperience, not only on Ruburt's part, but also on the part of the personality who did live and was
called Frank Watts. He was a personality from my entity, entirely independent from me and from my control, as I have explained that such personalities are. Ruburt's abilities were only beginning to show themselves, and had what we may refer to as a low-range frequency. There was an affinity to begin with, but Ruburt simply could not reach far enough, or within and through the inner senses enough, to contact me directly; and there are what you may call for simplicity's sake, conventions of conduct which I would not break. Had I attempted myself to contact Ruburt then, the contact would have amounted to a sort of psychic invasion, which I would find most unethical on my part.

Frank Watts was closer, and acted as an unconscious relay station on the one hand, while on the other hand his unconscious gave consent. The material which came through was extremely garbled, some distortions
resulting from Ruburt's inexperience, and some simply in translation. This was the reason for the rather abrupt switch from the Frank Watts identity to my own. This is why I did not give my name to the initial
endeavors, so that I could cast them adrift. Nevertheless, they represented a necessary beginning in these endeavors, and a beginning for which no apology is needed on your part or on mine.' Session 85

[Tob]

This may be helpful in understanding the functional character of Frank Watts for the Seth material:

'Now. The Seth material begins with the Seth material. Period. I will now explain to you where the Watts material came from, its significance, and the reason for its distortions. I did not want to go into this in the beginning. I did not want to impede your progress or hurt your sense of confidence. Again, as far as I am concerned, and I am Seth, the Seth material begins with the Seth material.

Nevertheless, much of the Watts material was valid. The distortions, too numerous to mention here, were the result of inexperience, not only on Ruburt's part, but also on the part of the personality who did live and was
called Frank Watts. He was a personality from my entity, entirely independent from me and from my control, as I have explained that such personalities are. Ruburt's abilities were only beginning to show themselves, and had what we may refer to as a low-range frequency. There was an affinity to begin with, but Ruburt simply could not reach far enough, or within and through the inner senses enough, to contact me directly; and there are what you may call for simplicity's sake, conventions of conduct which I would not break. Had I attempted myself to contact Ruburt then, the contact would have amounted to a sort of psychic invasion, which I would find most unethical on my part.

Frank Watts was closer, and acted as an unconscious relay station on the one hand, while on the other hand his unconscious gave consent. The material which came through was extremely garbled, some distortions
resulting from Ruburt's inexperience, and some simply in translation. This was the reason for the rather abrupt switch from the Frank Watts identity to my own. This is why I did not give my name to the initial
endeavors, so that I could cast them adrift. Nevertheless, they represented a necessary beginning in these endeavors, and a beginning for which no apology is needed on your part or on mine.' Session 85

And this may help to understand the relationship between Rubert (Jane) and Seth:

'I have promised to give you more material dealing with the psychic construction of the entity, and its relationship to its fragments. I could not tell you in the beginning in so many words that Ruburt is myself, because you would have leaped to the conclusion that I was Ruburt's subconscious mind, and this is not so. When you understand the construction of entities, then you will understand how this can be so. Ruburt is not myself now, in his present life; he is nevertheless an extension and materialization of the Seth that I was at one time. Nothing remains unchanging, personalities and entities least of all. You are still thinking in terms of concrete things. You cannot stop an entity or a personality in time, as you would like to do. I am Seth today. I keep my continuity but nevertheless I change, and offshoots like currents explode into being. As an idea changes, so do entities change while still retaining individuality and durability. But you cannot set up imaginary barriers, and stop or freeze my identity, nor for that matter your own. Ruburt was myself, Seth, many centuries ago, but he grew, evolved and expanded in terms of a particular, personal set of value fulfillments. He is now an actual gestalt, a personality that was one of the probable personalities into which Seth could grow. I represent another. I am another.' Session 54

'As the physical atoms and molecules combine to form cells, and the cells to form physical organs, and as they do not lose their individuality in so doing, and as the atoms and molecules themselves actually gain and share in higher perceptions because of this gestalt, so do the basic components or fragments of an entity constantly form new and varied personalities; and these in turn form entities of their own. I realize that this is somewhat difficult, but when you reread the last two sessions you will understand this material completely. Ruburt is now the result of the Seth that I once was, for I have changed since then. Ruburt represents, and is, a personality formed by that Seth which was myself, by focusing upon and using a peculiar set of attributes and abilities. To make it simpler, perhaps, we split, this being necessary always so that various possibilities can be brought into action. Ruburt has changed since then, and so have I.' Session 54

[usmaak]

I'm trying to understand how one very obvious fact fits into this whole Frank W. question, namely, that Frank W. lived in Elmira, NY of all places!! Is there any mention of this remarkable coincidence anywhere? Does anyone agree that this is an odd coincidence?

I've found a lot of what I would consider to be odd coincidences in the Seth Material.  No matter where the people in the books come from, they all seem to have known each other in so called previous lives.  This is one of the things that's always made me question the validity of the material.  It's all too pat sometimes.

[LarryH]

I've found a lot of what I would consider to be odd coincidences in the Seth Material.  No matter where the people in the books come from, they all seem to have known each other in so called previous lives.  This is one of the things that's always made me question the validity of the material.  It's all too pat sometimes.

usmaak, there is no coincidence here. All sorts of teachings about reincarnation include the idea that we tend to incarnate in groups, so that your sister in one life may have been your father in another, your best friend in another, your spouse in another. Frank W. was not known to Jane or Rob, so the only coincidence there was the Elmira connection, which I believe was adequately explained by Seth per Tob's post above.

[Sena]

When you understand the construction of entities, then you will understand how this can be so. Ruburt is not myself now, in his present life; he is nevertheless an extension and materialization of the Seth that I was at one time.

Tob, thanks for finding the important Session 54. This gives a clear description of the relationship of personalities to their entity. The personality is by no means "subordinate" to the entity. Another quote from Session 54:

"You have not asked me, and so I did not tell you. Nevertheless, there is no distortion in the particular material which you have been reading. Your Ruburt was, indeed, Seth. Your Ruburt spoke with my voice, for it was his voice." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 2 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

https://amzn.eu/g99AZWR

[Tob]

There is a new Bashar video focussing on the relationship between the oversoul and the individual, but it comes without structured explanation. It is basically a meditation ('The Infinite Restaurant'). That's pity. Please find below the link to a graphic depicting his cosmology in terms of several layers of consciousness, starting with the oversoul 'down' to the individual.

https://st2.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2223838636?profile=original


The following is the elaboration of Seth on the topic including various time aspects which are seemingly involved. It becomes obvious that creation is 'nested' in a way we cannot really understand, yet.

'In a dream, and this is new material, I have said that you can experience many days while no corresponding amount of physical time passes. In other words, it seems as if you travel very far in the flicker of an eyelash. Condensed time is the time felt by the entity, or experienced by the entity, while any of its given personalities "live" (and you had better put that in quotes) on a plane of physical materializations. To go into this a bit further, many men have said that life was a dream. They were true to the facts in one strong regard, and yet far afield as far as the main issue is concerned.

Individual life, or the life of the present individual, could be legitimately compared to the dream of an entity. While the individual suffers and enjoys his given number of years, these years are but a flash to the entity. The entity is concerned with these years in the same manner that you are concerned with your dreams. As you give inner purpose and organization to your dreams, and as you obtain insight and satisfaction from your dreams though they involve only a part of your life, so the entity to some extent directs and gives purpose and organization to his personalities during their existence. And so does the entity obtain insights and satisfactions from his existing personalities, although no one takes up all of his own attentions.

And as your dreams originate with you, rise from you, attain a seeming independence and have their ending with you, so do an entity's personalities arise from him, attain various degrees of independence, and return to him while never leaving him for an instant. The planes represent the various levels upon which the personalities operate.

You are familiar through your reading with so-called secondary personalities. There have been cases of individuals with three separate personalities. Now this idea comes close to the relationship of the entity to its personalities. They are independent to varying degrees, and they operate on various planes for purposes of overall fulfillment and development. To a lesser degree, you function along these lines in varying roles when you exist simultaneously as a member of a family, a member of a community, a nation, and as an artist or a writer. As you attempt to use your abilities so does the entity attempt to use his abilities, and he organizes his various personalities and to some extent directs their activities while still allowing them what you would call free will.

There exists infinities of diversity and opportunity for the personalities, and this diversity is given to it, to it meaning the personality, by the entity. Your own dreams are fragments, even as in a much larger sense you are fragments of your entity. An unrecognized unity and organization lies within all of your dreams, beneath their diversity. And your dreams, while part of you, actually exist apart. That is, you have given them a certain independence. This is difficult to explain clearly, and may be rather difficult for you to swallow whole.' (Session 28)

[Sena]

Individual life, or the life of the present individual, could be legitimately compared to the dream of an entity. While the individual suffers and enjoys his given number of years, these years are but a flash to the entity. The entity is concerned with these years in the same manner that you are concerned with your dreams. As you give inner purpose and organization to your dreams, and as you obtain insight and satisfaction from your dreams though they involve only a part of your life, so the entity to some extent directs and gives purpose and organization to his personalities during their existence. And so does the entity obtain insights and satisfactions from his existing personalities, although no one takes up all of his own attentions.

And as your dreams originate with you, rise from you, attain a seeming independence and have their ending with you, so do an entity's personalities arise from him, attain various degrees of independence, and return to him while never leaving him for an instant.

Tob, thanks for this. It really helps us understand the relationship between the entity and individual personalities.

Click for the full size image.

[Tob]

There are oversouls of oversouls, and oversouls of oversouls of oversouls. And up and up and up... It is never ending (Bashar). According to Seth entities can combine or rearrange themselves. Individual personalities can establish new entities 'in their own right' provided they are strong enough (Seth). Thus a petal can 'leave the flower' and become an independent conglomerate of petals in the graphic: https://www.gestaltreality.com/2013/05/22/the-multidimensional-self/
It is then joined by other consciousnesses 'from outside'.

Thus, we know basically nothing about Frank Watts. We received no information about his numerous parallel lives or the theme he is actually working on, respectively the larger purpose this is serving. We received the information that he is a 'fathead' which is in a way highly unfair. But Seth is no saint - as he freely admits - and we should not put him on a pedestal. And he does make mistakes. He was once rude in a transmission to Robert Butts and did then formally and officially apologize after the session (TES 1 or 2) for his inappropriate statements.