~Speaking of Seth~

hi everybody,
   
         would anyone please tell me what they think or know about
what Seth is/was?

I know he called himself an energy essence personality.

but I am wondering about other ways of describing him.
all of us here on Earth in physical reality have another portion of us that is immortal. we have a soul or entity. that soul or entity has many consciousnesses.
I don't think Seth is/was a soul or entity.
I think he was/is much more advanced than I am.
but not as advanced as a soul or entity.
I know he said was a teacher.
was he a Speaker too?
any thoughts greatly appreciated.
thank you.
peace and love,
Charlie

Hi Chasman,

That's a really great question.   

I think that the answer to this question may get pretty involved.

Let me dig around on this for a little bit and I'll get back to you.

-jbseth

This question has come up here before, but I'm not sure at the time I had the understanding of who Seth was and didn't have access to the newer books (such as the early and deleted sessions). One day it finally dawned to me that Seth was Jane and Jane was Seth. In previous incarnations. And there was a time when Seth actually channeled Jane. This was through the Ouija board:

"Subconscious is a corridor. What difference does it make which door you travel through? Notwithstanding I can speak through her if I so choose. Once she spoke through me. You can't see the joke, of course. Ha.

("When did you speak through Jane?")

Ago century, seance. She was medium reaching me for you. I came through, too."

—TES1 Session 4 December 8, 1963

He said he, Jane and Rob were part of the same entity and reincarnated together many times, in different roles.

"Ruburt and myself were offshoots of the same entity, as I have mentioned. I will mention now that we have chosen the same paths. [...] 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 also that you are part of that same entity; and this is one of the main reasons why I am able to communicate with you both."

—TES2 Session 58 June 1, 1964

So what I made with this was that Seth was not some random old ghost Jane was channeling, but really that Seth and Jane were very closely related and she was essentially channeling herself or her inner self—maybe better said that she, Seth and Rob were intertwined through their common entity. While Seth says we all retain our individuality in Frameworks outside of this one, we are also all connected and also have full knowledge and understanding of all of our incarnations, counterparts, probable selves because the entity retains all of this information.

Seth was always a speaker, whether he was being channeled (energy personality essence), or physical here in F1 as an incarnation:

"once a Speaker always a Speaker,"
—SS Chapter 17: Session 569, February 24, 1971

"Using your historical reference, I returned at the time of the cavemen, operating as a Speaker. Now I have always been a Speaker, regardless of my physical occupation."
—SS Chapter 22: Session 588, August 2, 1971

"Now in the past, in your distant past, when I spoke through others, or portions of my entity did so, then such personal connections also existed with those through whom we communicated."
—TES9 Session 463 February 5, 1969

So maybe Jane has always been a speaker too. With personal those connections. But Seth also mentions there are speakers and there are Speakers and SPEAKERS. He said less than 30 of the latter (SS Session 578). Personally I'd classify Seth as one of them.


This is kind of it in a nutshell, I hope it makes some sense. I'm sure others such as jbseth will be able to clarify if I'm off in the bushes or not clear in what I'm writing.

Quote from: chasman
hi everybody, ...

In the first pages of the first book Seth dictated "Seth Speaks" (1972), he introduced himself. If you can, I suggest that you re-read that.

He writes:

QuoteBasically you are no more of a physical being than I am, and I have donned and discarded more bodies than I care to tell. Personalities who do not exist do not write books. I am quite independent of a physical image, and so are you.
Consciousness creates form. It is not the other way around. All personalities are not physical. It is only because you are so busily concerned with daily matters that you do not realize that there is a portion of you who knows that its own powers are far superior to those shown by the ordinary self.

QuoteI am an energy personality essence, no longer focused in physical matter.

Hi chasman,

Seth indicates that he was an entity in "Seth Speaks", Chapter 1, Session 513. As an entity, he tells us about some of the numerous lives that he lived in "Seth Speaks", Chapter 22, Session 588.

He also tells us that he was a portion of the "psychological bridge" or "bridge personality" that he and Ruburt created between themselves so that he could communicate with her. He talks about this in TES6, Session 241. 

In addition to this, he also says that he and Seth 2, are one, as he states TES8, Session 408. 


Seth Speaks, Chapter 1, Session 513:
I am aware of a different kind of experience, not linear, and can focus upon and react to an infinite variety of simultaneous events. Ruburt could not express them, and so they must be leveled out into linear expression if they are to be communicated. This ability to perceive and react to unlimited simultaneous events is a basic characteristic of each whole self or entity. Therefore, I do not claim it as some feat that is exclusively my own.


Seth Speaks, Chapter 22, Session 588"
I did not play the part of any towering personality of historical note, but became experienced in the homey and intimate details of daily life, the normal struggle for achievement, the need for love. I learned the unutterable yearning of father for son, son for father, husband for wife, wife for husband, and fell headlong into the intimate webs of human relationships. Before your idea of history, I was a Lumanian, and was later born in Atlantis.

Using your historical reference, I returned at the time of the cavemen, operating as a Speaker. Now I have always been a Speaker, regardless of my physical occupation. I have been a spice merchant in Denmark, where I knew Ruburt and Joseph. In several lives I was black — once in what is now called Ethiopia, and once in Turkey.

My lives as monks followed my experience as a pope, and in one of these, I was a victim of the Spanish Inquisition. My experience in female lives varied from that of a plain Dutch spinster to a courtesan at the time of the biblical David, to several existences as a humble mother with children.



TES6, Session 241: 
Now. There are indeed psychological frameworks that operate in communications such as ours, and I shall attempt to explain their function and composition.

I will first discuss our own particular circumstances, and then proceed to a more general discussion. There is Ruburt's ego, and his subconscious, as you know. There are also other areas or levels that are part of his whole personality. In our case a gestalt personality or a psychological bridge

(Jane and I were at once very intrigued by Seth's term, "psychological bridge"—one most natural and evocative, it seemed to us.)

This psychological framework obviously must be receptive. It must also be formed by portions of my own essence, and by portions of Ruburt's personality. It can be thought of almost as a psychological protrusion, though this is not precisely the word to explain it.

Bridge perhaps is better. This psychological framework is in itself capable of growth, in terms of development. It represents on Ruburt's part a psychological expansion, and indeed on my own part also. It is formed partially by abilities inherent within all personalities, psychic abilities, and it is composed of energy. It is not a secondary personality, for it exists in quite a different dimension than secondary personalities.

Now. This psychological framework is the medium through which we can communicate. It is purely a psychic organization that telepathically transmits concepts from me to Ruburt. We have always preferred the light trance state over a deeper trance for several reasons.



TES8, Session 408: (Seth2 speaks initially, then Seth takes over. Bold font is mine)
Now you may end the session. If you feel lonely you may speak with Seth the earlier, if you wish. (Pause; smile.
("Yes, by all means. Are you there, Seth?"
(Jane had been sitting relaxed on the couch. Now she leaned forward, eyes closed but with the familiar gestures and mannerisms of Seth.)
Good evening.
("Good evening, Seth."
(The voice was also Seth's, strong, much deeper, and immediate. It was also amused.)

I see you have received some surprise.
("Yes.")
My big brother has come-
("Yes.")
—to get into the act. That is all right (smile; eyes open), and certainly I have hinted at this development in past material—opaquely. (This exchange featured much amusement on Seth's part.
("Yes. Were you with us earlier this evening?")
Needless to say, I have not missed a session with you. (Smile.) It may surprise you that I can remain silent, but it is one of my virtues with which you were not familiar.
("Well, maybe. So now we speak to Seth One and Two, huh?"
(Seth's delivery was emphatic and quite immediate, with many gestures and no pauses. Jane had made the change from the first more distant personality, into Seth, without difficulty—very smoothly in fact. But I thought it a good idea not to continue this exchange too long.)
You are like magicians, indeed, pulling white rabbits out of hats.
("I don't know about that.")
I am speaking with you this evening so that you realize I am hardly deserting you. I have told you I am a teacher, and I have let the principal in the door. (Amused and forceful.) But I will hold my own classes.
It is quite true in important respects, however, that the two of us are one. This comes as no surprise to me.[...]



- jbseth

Quote from: chasman
hi everybody,

You can easily access "Seth Speaks" here: https://archive.org/stream/PdfsSethMaterial/Seth_Speaks#mode/2up

wow!!
super grateful to you all Deb, jbseth and inavalan!!!

fascinating awesome info, all of it.

thanks extra much.

you guys and gals all rock!!!!!     

Oh, wait, there's more! I just found this today, I'd read it before but didn't come across it again until I was researching for the time/space post.

Seth (his underlining, my bolding):

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.

I have mentioned to you that endless personalities, in terms of value fulfillment, exist inherent in each of your physical atoms, molecules and smaller particles. So, also, each entity contains within itself almost endless possibilities in terms of value fulfillment.

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. And yet we are bound together, and no invasion occurs because in one way of speaking our psychic territory is the same. I will go into the construction of entities later. 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.

I suggest your first break.

(Break at 9:58. Jane was dissociated as usual. She resumed dictating in the same energetic manner at 10:08.)

Session 54, The Early Sessions 2

@Deb : Seth uses "I was" "I am" "is now" "changed since then" "I keep ... but ... I change"

All those imply a succession of events in Seth's level of Reality, a kind of "time" that flows in a single direction. It is like from his vantage point any point in our "time" can be accessed in any order, but this isn't the same for Seth's level of "time".

Or, maybe I just unconsciously try to validate my current dream like model of links between our identities and our personalities' Realities.

thank you very extra much again Deb.

first of all, and most importantly thank you alot, to all 3 of you for replying.
I am still wondering if Seth was/is an entity.

jbseth, about the session 513 quote, do you or any of you know if an entity and whole self are the same thing?

if yes, then I agree Seth is saying that he is an entity.
if no, then I still don't know.
maybe the fact that Seth is/was a speaker means that he is an entity.
if anyone has any more thoughts about yes or no, I'm all ears.  please?

There is this compilation of various concepts (2004). The document starts with "SETH SPEAKING ABOUT HIS PURPOSE":



Next this: "FUTURE SETH SPEAKS ABOUT THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS"

thank you very much inavalan.

I have been searching and reading.
in Seth Speaks chapter 20, session 582, after the 10:26, he uses the terms, soul, entity and whole self like they are the same thing.
I'll keep searching, but maybe thats how it is.

Quote from: chasman
jbseth, about the session 513 quote, do you or any of you know if an entity and whole self are the same thing?

if yes, then I agree Seth is saying that he is an entity.
if no, then I still don't know.
maybe the fact that Seth is/was a speaker means that he is an entity.
if anyone has any more thoughts about yes or no, I'm all ears.  please?

Ooooo, fascinating stuff! Seth being an entity is something I've wondered about, but never really delved into. I would say that a whole self is the entity which is comprised of every incarnation, probable self and other offshoots of itself, as our body is the whole self of all the cells within. Not sure about Seth being an entity. His being a Speaker makes me think he has spent his individual existence as a go between his entity and various systems (ours only being one of them).

Seth said he, Jane and Rob were part of the same entity, which also makes me think that at the time of his communication through Jane he was not an entity himself. He also mentioned, I think, Jane would or could become an entity as she was done with her reincarnational cycle. He also said that a soul/personality/ego/individual (any off-shoot of an entity) could choose to become an entity itself. More Info here: https://findingseth.com/q/'become+an+entity'/

"Any personality may become an entity on its own. This involves a highly developed knowledge of the use of energy and its intensities."
—TES9 Session 429 August 14, 1968

"An entity can indeed in some ways be compared to a tree that brings forth many seeds, the seeds being individuals in themselves, with all the potentialities to become themselves full entities."
—TES2 Session 54 May 18, 1964

At this point, I don't know the "hierarchy" of entities, meaning how many levels of entities are there? Is it infinite like everything else? Seth/Jane/Rob's entity was "nameless" and in this quote, I don't take this literally that the Seth entity is the personality that was speaking through Jane, but a "we are Seth" entity like the "Christ personality." Is Seth II the "nameless" entity of them? Jane once also sensed a Seth III lurking out there...

"Seth's entity, who is nameless in our terms, spoke this evening, rather than Seth. See the 464th session for February 10, 1969; this is the last time this entity spoke to us. Seth's entity hasn't spoken many times; the 464th session and earlier ones contain detailed notes as to the manner of speaking used by the entity, etc."
—TES9 Session 489 June 23, 1969

"We are therefore always a part of the one entity which is the Seth entity."
—TES8 Session 419 June 26, 1968

"He is a part of the overall entity that did become physical, although now in your terms that portion of his existence is finished."
—TES8 Session 410 May 8, 1968

Does anyone have TES8? Is the "he is a part of the overall entity that did become physical" about Seth?

Loads of great stuff here: https://findingseth.com/q/'Seth+entity'/

I need to look for this in TECS9 to see what the context is, because the words "some new ideas from both entities" have me curious:

"The session is included in the regular series because of the voice effects; the fact that both Seth & his entity spoke; some new ideas from both entities; and because no regular session was held the next day, Wednesday, July 16."
—TES9 Notes By RFB

Hi Chasman, Hi Deb, Hi All,


Chasman, I'll post something here soon about what Seth says about whole self, the soul and entity.



Deb, I have a copy of the book TES8 and I looked into your question regarding the statement made in Session 410 and here's what I can share.

In the later sessions of this book, Jane channels both Seth and Seth 2, back and forth, numerous times across many sessions.  Surprisingly, even though this seems to occur quite often, I've found that in most cases, it's usually not too hard to tell whether it's Seth or Seth 2 who's talking to Rob.

Some of the differences is that when Seth talks to Rob, he almost always starts out with "Good Evening". Furthermore, he also typically asks Rob if he wants or need to take a break and/or if he wants or needs to end the session.

On the other hand, Seth 2 almost never seems to do any of these things. Instead, Seth 2 just seems to start out talking and just seems to stop when he's done.  It almost appears to me as though Seth 2 doesn't seem to understand the subtle nuances involved in typical human communication. And of course, why would he, he's never been human.

From this then, in Session 410 of this book, it appears to me that it was Seth 2, who was talking about Seth, in the statement, "He is a part of the overall entity that did become physical, although now in your terms that portion of his existence is finished."

-jbseth

thank you both super extra much!!

Deb, I don't have TES8. (I see you do jbseth,very good.)

ok, my understanding of what you both posted is that Seth is not an entity.

he is part of an entity.

jbseth I am looking forward to your post about what Seth says about whole self, soul and entity.
I think soul and entity are the same.
I don't know if whole self is the same too. or not.

Quote from: chasman
I think soul and entity are the same

No wonder we're confused ...

From a quick search for soul AND entity:

Quote"It is energy concentrated to a degree quite unbelievable to you. It contains potentials unlimited, but it must work out its own identity and form its own worlds. It carries within it the burden of all being. Within it are personality potentials beyond your comprehension. Remember, this is your own soul or entity I am speaking of, as well as soul or entity in general. You are one manifestation of your own soul. How many of you would want to limit your reality, your entire reality, to the experience you now know? You do this when you imagine that your present self is your entire personality, or insist that your identity be maintained unchanged through an endless eternity."
—SS Chapter 6: Session 526, May 4, 1970

Quote"First of all, a soul is not something that you have. It is what you are. I usually use the term "entity" in preference to the term "soul," simply because those particular misconceptions are not so connected with the word "entity," and its connotations are less religious in an organizational sense."
—SS Chapter 6: Session 526, May 4, 1970

Quote"The entity then, or greater self, is composed of souls. [...] The entity has its existence in multitudinous dimensions, its souls free to travel within boundaries that would seem infinite to you. As the smallest cell within your body participates to its degree in your daily experience, so does the soul to an immeasurably greater extent share in the events of the entity."
—NoPR Chapter 9: Session 637, January 31, 1973

Quote"A group of selves forms a soul. I am not telling you that you do not have a soul to call your own. (Again louder, with a smile:) You are a part of your soul."
—NoPR Chapter 9: Session 637, January 31, 1973

Quote from: inavalan
"The entity then, or greater self, is composed of souls. [...] The entity has its existence in multitudinous dimensions, its souls free to travel within boundaries that would seem infinite to you. As the smallest cell within your body participates to its degree in your daily experience, so does the soul to an immeasurably greater extent share in the events of the entity."
—NoPR Chapter 9: Session 637, January 31, 1973

no wonder we're confused indeed. thank you for your post inavalan.
for me, this quote is very helpful.
entities are composed of many souls. wow!!

Hi Chasman, Hi All,

Below I've captured "some" of the comments that Seth made about the soul, the spirit, the inner ego, the outer ego, the whole self, the entity and the oversoul. Along with this, I've also included some comments made by Seth about his relationship with Seth 2.

While I've captured a lot of information here, I seriously doubt that I've captured everything.  Thus, there may be some additional information out there, that sheds more light on these topics.



TES1, Session 25: (the soul and the spirit)
I wanted to go into the invention of the soul, using mankind's own terminology, the soul and the spirit being thought of as one and the same thing. [...]


TES1, Session 25: (the whole self and the entity)
When I speak of the whole self I am of course referring to the personality as it exists in its entirety, having at its command use of both the inner and outer senses. That is, I speak of the doer, the mover, the breather and the dreamer as all belonging to one whole self.

This designation does not include the entity as a whole, however. The personality does have access to the entity, but the personality does not contain the entity. In other words the whole self as it exists on your plane does not contain the entity, although communication between the entity and the whole self can and does take place by means of the inner senses.


TES7, Session 309: (the whole self)
Each probable self you see also has future selves. This multidimensional identity is a psychological structure with which we shall be dealing in our discussions. The term includes the whole self as it consists of the self that you know, probable selves, reincarnated selves, and selves more highly developed than the self that you know.

These make up the basic identity structure of one whole self. Again, this does not mean that the portions are not independent and individual. Also, the divisions are arbitrary to a large degree, for they can indeed be carried further, for example, to the entity.


TES2, Session 58: (the inner ego and the outer ego)
As far as self and notself are concerned, the unit of self is organized, as you know, by the inner ego, which directs the whole energy field. The outer ego directs the manipulation of this gestalt in the physical universe. The outer ego is rather more tied to physical properties, and yet it can directly experience inner reality by a change of focus through aligning itself with the inner ego, focusing its energies with the inner rather than the outer senses. This is by far the most advantageous method of experiencing inner reality, because the outer ego is therefore consciously aware of what has been going on, and can use such knowledge in its own sphere.


TES2, Session 58: (the outer ego, the inner ego and the entity)
Other egos choose instead to become entities of their own, in which case this magnificent outer ego becomes in turn an inner ego, which then from its own unfulfilled desires, abilities and initiatives are formed new outer egos which once again seek fulfillment.


SS, Ch 6, Session 526: (the soul and the entity)
First of all, a soul is not something that you have. It is what you are. I usually use the term "entity" in preference to the term "soul," simply because those particular misconceptions are not so connected with the word "entity," and its connotations are less religious in an organizational sense.


NOPR, Ch 9, Session 637: (the self, the soul, the oversoul and the entity)
(Pause at 10:20.) A group of cells forms an organ. A group of selves forms a soul. I am not telling you that you do not have a soul to call your own. (Again louder, with a smile:) You are a part of your soul. It belongs to you, and you to it. You dwell within its reality as a cell dwells within the reality of an organ. The organ is temporal in your terms. The soul is not.


NOPR, Ch 9, Session 638: (self, soul, oversoul and entity)
As earlier mentioned (at 10:20 in the 637th session), and simply following the analogy, each self has its own soul within the oversoul, and the oversoul is itself a part of the entity's multidimensional structure.


TES8, Session 409: (Seth and Seth 2)
(In this session, in talking about Seth 2, Seth said the following.)
"It is quite true in important respects, however, that the two of us are one. This comes as no surprise to me."


TES9, Session 428: (Seth and Seth 2)
One aside here: while I am myself as you know me, I am also the other personality that sometimes speaks. This does not mean that what I am as you know me, ends, or is finished, in what he is.

(Humorously.) I am overjoyed to be the self that you know (smile), and I do indeed take pleasure in that existence, and in meeting its responsibilities. (Pause.) The other personality (smile), which is also myself, has a warm spot in its heart for me (stronger, forceful voice), though again, he would not put it in those terms. He enjoys his own existence.

Both of us are obviously then portions of a larger self, and manifestations of it, but one does not end in the other, and one's purpose is not to become the other. We all, quite simply, are. Keep this sort of thing in mind when you think in terms of purposes. For the word can distract you, and lead you into narrowing concepts.


SS, Ch 22, Session 589: (Seth and Seth 2)
(In this session, in talking about Seth 2, who had just been talking to Rob at the end of the previous session, Seth said the following.)

Now: We will continue. There are kinds of consciousness that cannot be deciphered in physical terms. The "personality" who originated the paragraphs you have just read is such a one.

As mentioned, there is the same kind of connection between that personality and myself as the one that exists between Ruburt and myself. But in your terms, Seth Two is far further divorced from my reality than I am from Ruburt's. You can imagine Seth Two as a future portion of me if you prefer, and yet far more is involved.

I am myself using simple terms here to try and make these ideas clearer. In a trance state, Ruburt can contact me. In a state in some ways similar to a trance, I can contact Seth Two. We are related in ways quite difficult to explain, united in webs of consciousness. My reality includes, then, not only reincarnational identities but also other gestalts of being that do not necessarily have any physical connections.

[...]

In larger terms, my soul includes my reincarnational personalities, Seth Two, and probable selves. I am as aware of my probable selves, incidentally, as I am of my reincarnational existences. Your concept of the soul is simply so limited. I am not really speaking in terms of group souls, though this interpretation can also be made.

Each "part" of the soul contains the whole — a concept I am sure will startle you.[...]



-jbseth

It would've been so much clearer if Seth presented a diagram ... "A picture is worth a thousand words" 

thank you sooooooo much jbseth.
I read slow, so and am very busy for the next couple days.
but I'll read this as soon as i can.
thank you for the taking the time, and putting the energy into all you posted,
you are very kind and generous!!

and yeah I agree inavalan.   

Hi All,

"You can imagine Seth Two as a future portion of me if you prefer, and yet far more is involved."

This is what confuses me. How can a future me, exist, ( or anyone) when I haven't gotten there yet?
I think Seth has said, that our deaths exist as much as our births. 
So do we have choice in our affairs? Or are we just running on some track of predestination? 
Are we just repeating actions that have already happened??  How can a future me pre-exist?

This is the stuff I can't figure out! 

Hi T.M.,

Here's a thought.

Let's say that Adam was born, raised, lived and died in London in the 16th century.

After this, Adam was reincarnated as Bill, who was born, raised, lived and died in Boston in the 18th century.

After this, Bill was reincarnated as Charlie, who was born, raised, lived and died in New York in the 20th century.

So here we have:

Adam – 16th century
Bill – 18th century
Charlie – 20th century


During his lifetime, Adam asked the question, "How can a future me, exist, when I haven't gotten there yet?" Furthermore, from Adam's perspective, the answer to this question seems to be, it can't.

However, from Charlie's perspective, the answer to Adam's question is this. Since Adams, future life, Bill, is a past life of mine, then it's easy to see, from my (Charlie's) perspective that Adams future life, Bill, can in fact easily exist, even though from Adam's perspective, he (Adam) hadn't gotten there yet.

Maybe this is all just a perspective thing.

- jbseth

Hi All,

Thank You Jbseth!!  That gives me something to work with!!

Quote from: jbseth
Maybe this is all just a perspective thing.

Again a convergence of both topics, Time and Space and this one! Hmmmm. I'm starting to think that EVERYTHING is about perspective here on Earth.

And great analogy of the three incarnations. I think that "places in time" are actually different frequencies.

Quote from: inavalan quoting Seth
"First of all, a soul is not something that you have. It is what you are. I usually use the term "entity" in preference to the term "soul," simply because those particular misconceptions are not so connected with the word "entity," and its connotations are less religious in an organizational sense."
—SS Chapter 6: Session 526, May 4, 1970

Quote from: chasman
no wonder we're confused indeed.

Amen to that! I also need to read all of this over again. Souls, entities, which is it? I am a soul but am I a splinter of my Oversoul/Entity? I am just a portion of my Oversoul, as are my counterparts, incarnations and probable selves. One big happy family. Maybe the Oversoul is not an independent consciousness and just the point where all of us splinters converge.

Sorry it's been a long week for me, my brain is fried and I'm probably babbling.

thank you inavalan and T.M. for your thoughts.

jbseth,  thank you again very much for all you posted.
wishing for a simple clear easy way to understand all of this.

the NOPR Ch.9 session 638 quote looks helpful for that.

Deb, thank you for all your thoughts. I super appreciate all of them.

I've read back through this thread.

I see a mish mash of quotes from the Seth material about Seth, Seth 2 and the word entity.

Deb and jbseth, if you want me to, I could go through it all again, and find the quotes.

but, otherwise, I'm gonna let it go.

I think I read:
Seth is an entity.
Seth and Seth 2 are part of the same entity.
Seth 2 is Seth's entity.
possibly other ones I'm forgetting.
I'm all shagged out after a long squawk, and need rest now.
peace and love,
Charlie

Quote from: chasman
Deb and jbseth, if you want me to, I could go through it all again, and find the quotes.but, otherwise, I'm gonna let it go.

Hi Chasman,

I have no need to you to revisit all of these quotes on my part.
Seth's quotes speak for themselves.

I for one, always appreciate your participation in this forum.
Enjoy your rest.   

-jbseth

thank you jbseth.
I appreciate very much all of your kind words, and all the excellent posts
you make on the forum.     

Quote from: inavalan
It would've been so much clearer if Seth presented a diagram ... "A picture is worth a thousand words" 

My wish was heard (before I made it)  :

Quote
full size


full size

Multidimensional aspects of the Self

• The Entity – A gestalt or grouping of the present personality and all reincarnational selves sharing the same Inner Self/Ego. The term "entity" in the context of The Seth Material is synonymous with the term "Oversoul" (term used by Jane).
• The Inner Ego – Also referred to as the "Inner Self" or "Source Self". This is your core self. This is the source of your inner most intuitions & creativity.
• The Personality – This is the unique you, separate and distinct from your other reincarnational selves. Also known as the current "Incarnational self",  "Psyche" or very loosely as the "Soul".
• Reincarnational Selves/Personalities – This includes past and future selves; physical and non-physical. There is a potential for a near infinite number of these.
• Probable Selves (not shown on picture) – These would be additional layer selves that grow out from each individual personality.
• The Subconscious – While technically not a "self" it is the layers of information that connects you with all other aspects of your self, as well the as the rest of All That Is.
• The Dream Self – This self is your sleeping counterpart which constructs the dream universe and looks inward through the subconscious to the inner self.
• The Outer Ego – Also referred to as the "Outer Self", this is the thinking/feeling  "I" that is self aware of life in the physical universe. The intellect is an aspect of the outer ego. (more on the ego)

Jane Roberts coined the system "Aspect Psychology" to describe these various selves. Much like ancient understandings of archetypal divinity, divinity was understood to be something with multiple aspects. These multiple "gods" or personalities were merely aspects of a greater underlying unity.

Seth describes two primary ways to facilitate communication between the ego and the other various aspects of the self.

• Emotional Mastery – Most inner communication occurs via emotions. Our deeper intuitions arise from inner emotional impulses. Becoming aware of our emotions and how they move/change is important.
• Dream Mastery – Our dreaming self is in direct contact with the subconscious and deals with information on a more archetypal/symbolic level. Understanding emotions and the symbolic forms they take on in our dreams here are critical for understanding what the dream self is trying to communicate to the waking outer ego.

wow!!
really awesome.

do you know who made these diagrams?
Jane, Seth?
or the dude who has the gestalt reality website?

Quote from: chasman
wow!!
really awesome.

do you know who made these diagrams?
Jane, Seth?
or the dude who has the gestalt reality website?

I suppose the dude drew the diagrams.

If you follow the link:


you can find a lot more on this subject. The dude did a good job. 

thank you very much!!!!   

Quote from: chasman
thank you very much!!!!   

You're welcome. This thread made me dig, and learned a lot: thank you!

I'm very glad.
thank you for the many excellent posts you make. 

Hi All,

Thank You Inavalan for posting the diagram and link!!!

Quote from: T.M.
Hi All,

Thank You Inavalan for posting the diagram and link!!!

You're welcome.

I found another interesting quote, that shines more light on this subject (not on the above mentioned iste). It is also remarkable because it shows the level of evolvement Seth has:

Quote"Full use of the inner senses is not even for me yet. There is still a long way for me to go. We progress along these lines according to our capabilities and our own strengths. The conscious ego also develops in a strange manner through all this, as I will now attempt to explain.

Through experience in the various levels of existence the inner ego and the outer ego come closer and closer together. The subconscious eventually disappears, as it is no longer needed as a necessary buffer zone. At your stage of development the inner ego is by far the most self-conscious part of the whole self, and has the greatest ability for perception and organization. It alone is capable of experiencing inner and basic reality directly and immediately. It alone can cope with the tumultuous nature of such direct reality experience.

[... 3 paragraphs ...]

In the various levels of existence the inner and outer egos begin to merge. Gradually direct experience of inner reality is spoon-fed by the inner ego through the mouth of the subconscious to the outer ego. The division between the inner and outer egos is necessary for other reasons than the nature of direct experience itself. That is, the outer ego is shielded from direct experience of reality because it could not take the impact of such experience. But this is not the only reason."

—TES1 Session 35 March 16, 1964

fascinating, thank you very much inavalan.   

Wow, there have been some really amazing discoveries here as far as Seth articles and sources! I took a look at the Gestault Reality website and the guy who maintains it is pretty amazing. More about that later, I just had to post this funny lengthy quote about Seth as a God. I'd been looking for it for two days, and just now found it right under my nose: in my mail inbox!

One more thing:

Here is Ron Card explaining the Seth quote below. Bold was added by me, the rest of punctuation was already in the quote:

     "Seth has stated in the material that he is not Jane's subconscious, however, they both shared several lifetime relationships on the earth plane in centuries past, in historical terms. They were psychically related and have since gone their separate ways, but are still connected, psychically-speaking--always.
     Together they formed a new personality gestalt, a spin-off, so to speak, that is expressing on its own featuring attributes and characteristics of both personalities, while the even greater evolved and evolving Seth personality is a multidimensional and interdimensional pyramid energy gestalt, whose family can be called, WE ARE SETH.
     The vintage Seth of Jane and Rob was a "stand-alone" energy gestalt in its own right."

Seth:

"(12:02.) In regular sessions, as now, he and I again both make adjustments, and so in sessions I am what I call a bridge personality, composed of a composite self — Ruburt and I meeting and merging to form a personality that is not truly either of us, but a new one that exists between dimensions. Beyond that is my real identity."
—UR2 Section 4: Session 711 October 9, 1974

What I find very interesting is this from the paragraph following the above quote:

"Now Ruburt called me originally (Rob: last Saturday night) at unconscious levels because he was upset with "earth programming." He thought that you needed some help from the outside, so to speak. That intent set up certain signals that reached into other realities or stations, and I answered. I was not speaking to Ruburt personally when he heard me, but addressing myself to the world at large in a program that was indeed picked up by others.

This program spread out and was translated by others in dream states. In physical terms, however, the message given that evening is still to be presented through these books."
—UR2 Section 4: Session 711 October 9, 1974

Hi Deb, Hi All.

Wow Deb, I just realized that the bottom half of your last post comes from UR2, Session 711. I thought that this must have been some "deleted" material instead.

Out of curiosity, I took a look at Session 711, in my UR2 book and I discovered that there's a wealth of very interesting information in this particular session. Most of it I don't recall ever reading before.


Several paragraphs prior to Seth's statement about, "addressing myself to the world at large in a program", he began to talk about how recently Ruburt, while in bed, where his body was asleep but where his consciousness was drifting, had heard Seth's voice.

This discussion then leads us up to the point where Seth makes this, "addressing myself to the world at large in a program". Then, after this, he carries this discussion even further into other very interesting topics.

Anyone who's interested, might want to take a look at this session, when you get a chance.

-jbseth

forest (all-that-is) > trees > trunks > stems > leaves > nervures

Quote from: Seth
addressing myself to the world at large in a program

Finding the rest of that quote was fortuitous timing for me. Recently Kate of The Seth House contacted me about Seth's "the experiment that was never tried" (SS Sess. 546). She's had some synchronicity around that lately, involving me and another person who attended the Seth classes (I never heard of him before). Anyway, I sent her some ideas that came to me about how the experiment could be conducted, and then I came across the quote about Seth sending out the blast message to the world. Seth: better than email! I sent Kate that quote this morning, I felt it was related. If she likes my ideas, and she follows through with the experiment, we here can all be involved.

Inavalan, did you make those graphics? There're great! I've always pictured things set up like a multilevel dandelion puff with ATI at the center and everything springing out from the center, layer after layer branching out. I'd love to be able to make a drawing of what I have in mind, but I think I'd have to work in 3D.

It's interesting that plant life is so useful for demonstrating these. Seth used the forest to explain time, often used flowers for other topics. As is above so is below. 

Hi All,

Here's some comments by Seth about a frog, that give us the relationship that exists between small items, like a frog and All That Is.  This is similar to the relationship that exists between Jane & Rob, Seth, Seth 2, ..., to All That Is as indicated by inavalan's excellent pictures in reply # 40.


TES3, Session 133:

A small frog for example may be more likely seen not as a frog isolated, but as one part of the pond in which he lives; and the pond part of the forest in which it lies; and the forest part of the earth; and the earth itself part of the universe, which is part of another universe.

It makes no difference to the frog, to the nature of the frog, and it changes no smallest cell within him, if you choose to enclose what you call him, as an idea unit called frog, or whether you consider instead the complete picture. The identities still remain the same.


-jbseth

Hi All,

Hi Jbseth,  I like the  excerpt from TES3, Session 133.  That's a neat way of looking at it, Thanks!

Hi Deb,

In regards to "the experiment that was never tried", is this what you are referring to?





I love this idea.


-jbseth

Quote from: Deb
Inavalan, did you make those graphics? There're great! I've always pictured things set up like a multilevel dandelion puff with ATI at the center and everything springing out from the center, layer after layer branching out. I'd love to be able to make a drawing of what I have in mind, but I think I'd have to work in 3D.

It's interesting that plant life is so useful for demonstrating these. Seth used the forest to explain time, often used flowers for other topics. As is above so is below. 

Yes. It is the analogy I got. That also illustrates "time", "probable lives", ...

Hi All,

Hi Inavalan,  I too like your tree analogy and graphics,  Thanks! 

Quote from: jbseth
Some, after death, understanding these truths, choose to return to physical existence and explain them. Through the centuries this has been the way. In the system of probabilities that originates within physical reality, this is also the case.

That is something anybody can try by themselves, and should do it, no matter what others do. If one waits for others to do it together, it won't ever happen for them.

@Deb ,  @jbseth , @T.M. thanks

Hi inavalan,

Hey, in your tree multiverse.jpg graphic, would you then consider the earth that the tree was rooted in as representative of All That Is?   

-jbseth