~Speaking of Seth~

This is a possible criticism of the Seth teachings. I searched the Seth writings for "ecology", and there were no results. This is what Seth said about Nature:

"When you consider ideas as mental and apart from nature, then you feel separated from nature itself. When you imagine a life after death as unnatural or supernatural then you feel divorced, cut off and bewildered. You must try to understand that there are different kinds of nature within Nature — and a capital for the last one. Your physical life — your human nature — is, in your terms, dependent upon a time when you were not. You must realize that not being in that connotation is quite as natural as physical being. Your existence before and after death is as much a normal phenomenon as your present life." (from "The Nature of Personal Reality: Specific, Practical Techniques for Solving Everyday Problems and Enriching the Life You Know (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/6pYGOot

"Myths are originally psychic fabrications of such
power and strength that whole civilizations can rise from their source.
They involve symbols and know emotional validities that are then
connected to the physical world, so that that world is never the same
again.
They cast their light over historical events because they are
responsible for those events. They mix and merge the inner, unseen but
felt, eternal psychic experience of man with the temporal events of his
physical days, and form a combination that structures thoughts and
beliefs from civilization to civilization. In Framework 2 the interior
power of nature is ever-changing. The dreams, hopes, aspirations and
fears of man interact in a constant motion that then forms the events of
your world. That interaction includes not only man, of course, but the
emotional reality of all earthly consciousnesses as well, from a microbe to
a scholar, from a frog to a star. You interpret the phenomena of your
world according to the mythic characteristics that you have accepted. You
organize physical reality, then, through ideas. You use only those
perceptions that serve to give those ideas validity. The physical body
itself is quite capable of putting the world together in different fashions
than the one that is familiar to you.
You divorce yourselves from nature and nature's intents far more than
the animals do. Nature in its stormy manifestations seems like in
adversary. You must either look for reasons outside of yourselves to
explain what seems to be nature's ill intent at such times, or its utter lack
of concern." (The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, p.85)

When Seth says, "You divorce yourselves from nature and nature's intents far more than
the animals do.", is he telling us that we should NOT divorce ourselves from nature and nature's intents?

Quote from: Sena
This is a possible criticism of the Seth teachings. I searched the Seth writings for "ecology", and there were no results. This is what Seth said about Nature:

Hi Sena,

What a great topic. I love it. Thanks for starting this.     

To me, "not" being willing to take a serious look at beliefs, (Seth's or anyone else's), and not being willing to make changes to them when indicated, has been a very serious problem in our society. An example of what I'm talking about here is exhibited by the Catholic Church (priests abusing children, priests must be celibate, its views on contraception, etc.).



I've always been attracted to the idea of taking care of our environment.  To me it's kind of like saying don't pollute and poison your house, in such a way that it could seriously harm or kill you and or your entire family. It isn't like we have somewhere else we can go, if we destroy the earth.




It seems to me that you've asked two separate questions.

Question 1:
Your topic heading, it says, "Did Seth devalue the natural environment?"

Question 2:
In your text, you said / asked, "You divorce yourselves from nature and nature's intents far more than the animals do.", is he telling us that we should NOT divorce ourselves from nature and nature's intents?



Regarding the first question, I think that first, we have to separate out the issue that Seth didn't use the word ecology very often, from the question of whether he devalued nature.  While Seth maybe didn't use the word "ecology" very often, he did use word "nature" very often (1419 times according to the Seth Search engine).

https://findingseth.com/q/nature/

In some of the things that Seth said, I think that it shows that he did value nature. I think that he actually valued nature very much. In SS, S550, he even seems to warn us that if we aren't worthy of the environment, the planet, the flowers, the birds, etc., they will destroy us.




SS Ch12, S550:
The problem of war will sooner or later teach you that when you kill another man, basically you will end up killing yourself. The over-population problem will teach you that if you do not have a loving concern for the environment in which you dwell, it will no longer sustain you — you will not be worthy of it. You will not be destroying the planet, you see. You will not be destroying the birds or the flowers, or the grain or the animals. You will not be worthy of them, and they will be destroying you.





In regards to your second question, I'm not sure that he was necessarily telling us that we shouldn't divorce ourselves from nature and natures intent.  I went back and read that session (NOME, Ch 3, S817) so that I could put your question into the correct context of what Seth was talking about. This is a really awesome session, very spiritual in nature when I think about what he says here.

In this session, Seth's talking about nature, Framework 2, and man's myths such as our religious, cultural and scientific ideas. He's also talking about how some religious people see natural disasters as God's work and how some scientifically minded people see natural disasters as purely random events that are not specifically related to us.

In this session, he seems to be saying that since we divorce ourselves from nature and nature's intents, we don't really grasp what's actually going on, for example, in a natural disaster. The myths that we believe, the religious or scientific idea's that we hold, tend to blind us to the working of nature, much of which occurs in Framework 2.

I think that in regards to your second question, I think that maybe he was just informing us of this issue.



In the first few sentences and in the last few sentences of the spoiler below, from NOPR,  Seth seems to be saying that we are a part of nature and that our feelings and beliefs place us in our own "natural" position within such natural events.



-jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
In regards to your second question, I'm not sure that he was necessarily telling us that we shouldn't divorce ourselves from nature and natures intent.  I went back and read that session (NOME, Ch 3, S817) so that I could put your question into the correct context of what Seth was talking about. This is a really awesome session, very spiritual in nature when I think about what he says here.

In this session, Seth's talking about nature, Framework 2, and man's myths such as our religious, cultural and scientific ideas. He's also talking about how some religious people see natural disasters as God's work and how some scientifically minded people see natural disasters as purely random events that are not specifically related to us.

In this session, he seems to be saying that since we divorce ourselves from nature and nature's intents, we don't really grasp what's actually going on, for example, in a natural disaster. The myths that we believe, the religious or scientific idea's that we hold, tend to blind us to the working of nature, much of which occurs in Framework 2.

jbseth, thanks for your response. I agree that it is not clear that Seth is saying that we should NOT divorce ourselves from nature.

Seth's statements about myths and Framework 2 seem to encourage us to distance ourselves from environmental concerns.

You had recently posted a thread on the terrible fires in Oregon and California. Environmentalists say that something should be done about reducing carbon emissions which cause climate change.

Is Seth saying that the cause of all these fires and other disasters is in Framework 2, so we shouldn't worry about carbon emissions?

Quote from: Sena
Is Seth saying that the cause of all these fires and other disasters is in Framework 2, so we shouldn't worry about carbon emissions?

Hi Sena,

I think that many, probably all, mass events have their beginning in FW2.

Along with this, in NOME, S803, Seth says that the stability of the planet depends upon what we consider to be natural disasters.  Understanding this concepts, sheds new light on natural disasters for some of us.


NOME, Ch1, S803:
(Long pause.) Natural disasters represent an understandably prejudiced concept, in which the vast creative and rejuvenating elements important to planetary life, and therefore to mankind, are ignored. The stability of the planet rests upon such changes and alterations, even as the body's stability is dependent upon, say, the birth and death of the cells.



This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to protect ourselves from these natural disasters when they do occur.  Nor does it mean that we should continue to do those things that are contributing to environmental problems like pollution and climate change.

-jbseth

Hi Sena

Today we are so used to attributing any kind of thing to a singular cause; however, according to Aristotle, we should distinguish four different kinds of causes in every case! I think the graph below illustrates this concept rather nicely.



Applied to the question at hand, this scheme implies that, while the formal cause of the climatic change may indeed be seen as existing in framework 2, it's material cause may very well have to do with carbon dioxide emissions.

In this as in so many other cases, it therefore makes sense to take action in regard to the cause located on the material plane as well as to those found on non-physical levels.

Talking about your other question, I believe Seth's intent was to make us consider that we are, and will always be, part of nature ourselves - no matter how much we try to divorce ourselves from it! He sometimes referred to the effortless, automatic functioning of our body to illustrate our actual closeness to nature. (Funny as this seems for a disembodied being!  ) - I always felt his position in this to be reall  close to Daoist thinking, BTW.

Seth did certainly not suggest that we renounce the comforts provided by modern technology and return to living in caves or on trees. He simply wanted us to contemplate the often forgotten beauty and effortlessness of natural processes - and find them in our own being!

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
Applied to the question at hand, this scheme implies that, while the formal cause of the climatic change may indeed be seen as existing in framework 2, it's material cause may very well have to do with carbon dioxide emissions.

Michael, thanks for your response. I still think this is one area where Seth is wrong, in that he devalues the natural environment. He is encouraging people to live in their heads rather than acknowledge that they are a part of Nature. Another area where Seth is probably wrong is his views on Christ. Seth is not infallible.

There is another thread on this forum, "The Afterlife Experiments", which points out that mediums have a remarkable ability to communicate with dead people. This does NOT mean that everything a medium communicates is true. In the case of Seth, it could mean that Jane Roberts was not a perfect communicator of Seth's ideas.

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
Applied to the question at hand, this scheme implies that, while the formal cause of the climatic change may indeed be seen as existing in framework 2, it's material cause may very well have to do with carbon dioxide emissions.

Michael, thanks for your response. I still think this is one area where Seth is wrong, in that he devalues the natural environment. He is encouraging people to live in their heads rather than acknowledge that they are a part of Nature.

Well, I surely used to feel a bit top heavy after readings hours of Seth stuff. 

QuoteAnother area where Seth is probably wrong is his views on Christ.

Uuuh, can of worms...

QuoteSeth is not infallible.

There is another thread on this forum, "The Afterlife Experiments", which points out that mediums have a remarkable ability to communicate with dead people. This does NOT mean that everything a medium communicates is true. In the case of Seth, it could mean that Jane Roberts was not a perfect communicator of Seth's ideas.

I agree, and this is something that readers of channelled material should consider well. Something being "channelled" doesn't apriori make it truer than something otherwise conceived! And to some extent, the distinction is irrelevant anyway - many works of literature and art have been the result of an inspirational process without being expressly given the "channelling" label.

Seth explained that what we perceive of him was actually due to some kind of interface between his own and Jane's personality. He had to work with the material that was present in her psyche. In other words, there was as much Jane in Seth's messages as there was Seth. This also explains why other "Seth channellers" just never sound the same as the original Seth. And this holds true for other entities represented by multiple channelers as well (Hilarion, Kryon etc).

In fact, Seth himself cautioned us not to value his words higher than our own intuitive insights - and hereby echoed what great spiritual teachers emphasized from Buddha to Alice A. Bailey's "Tibetan". Because we all have an inner self that connects us to other levels of reality with their unique vistas - and to those tailor-made chunks of truth that are relevant to where and what we are.

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
In fact, Seth himself cautioned us not to value his words higher than our own intuitive insights - and hereby echoed what great spiritual teachers emphasized from Buddha to Alice A. Bailey's "Tibetan". Because we all have an inner self that connects us to other levels of reality with their unique vistas - and to those tailor-made chunks of truth that are relevant to where and what we are.

Michael, it may be useful to summarize the really valuable Seth teachings:
(1) Each of us chose to born, and chose our parents.
(2) Seth reveals the purpose of incarnation in Earth reality:
"You are learning to be cocreators. You are learning to be gods as you now understand the term. You are learning responsibility — the responsibility of any individualized consciousness. You are learning to handle the energy that is yourself, for creative purposes." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)
(3) His teachings on Framework 2:
"In Framework 2 the interior power of nature is ever-changing. The dreams, hopes, aspirations and
fears of man interact in a constant motion that then forms the events of
your world. That interaction includes not only man, of course, but the
emotional reality of all earthly consciousnesses as well, from a microbe to
a scholar, from a frog to a star. (The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, p.85)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/cSoKolj

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
In fact, Seth himself cautioned us not to value his words higher than our own intuitive insights - and hereby echoed what great spiritual teachers emphasized from Buddha to Alice A. Bailey's "Tibetan". Because we all have an inner self that connects us to other levels of reality with their unique vistas - and to those tailor-made chunks of truth that are relevant to where and what we are.

Michael, it may be useful to summarize the really valuable Seth teachings:
(1) Each of us chose to born, and chose our parents.
(2) Seth reveals the purpose of incarnation in Earth reality:
"You are learning to be cocreators. You are learning to be gods as you now understand the term. You are learning responsibility — the responsibility of any individualized consciousness. You are learning to handle the energy that is yourself, for creative purposes." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)
(3) His teachings on Framework 2:
"In Framework 2 the interior power of nature is ever-changing. The dreams, hopes, aspirations and
fears of man interact in a constant motion that then forms the events of
your world. That interaction includes not only man, of course, but the
emotional reality of all earthly consciousnesses as well, from a microbe to
a scholar, from a frog to a star. (The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, p.85)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/cSoKolj

Sena,

I would agree that these are amongst Seth's most important teachings - right at the core of his metaphysical view of reality.

Although I feel that any of his countless minor insights could prove highly significant as well for somebody, given a particular set of circumstances. For instance, an open-minded physicist might find something of great value in Seth's concepts regarding miniscule particles, and the like.

I have read that NLP was founded based on Seth's ideas, to some extent. And I wonder how much more may have come into existence thanks to his influence, whether acknowledged or not.

It's interesting to me how everyone has a different approach to this topic.

I sure hope I can explain what's rattling around in my head.

I have to wonder if Seth's perspective on nature is due to everything physical here in F1 is camouflage, created by us. We see things like animals, and rain forests, the oceans and skies, pollution, deforestation and plastic as real—where Seth may have viewed them as things we've created, that will come and go until we learn respect. He said that civilizations have been created and destroyed... and new ones created in their place. And yet they were not really annihilated and still exist in their own way, such as he explained with the Lumanians in SS.

We have a responsibility to and for the civilization in which we exist, but to a consciousness like Seth that knows the bigger picture, realizes that this can all be transitory, and our destruction of nature is not real destruction in the same way Seth said, "you cannot kill." Yet killing is wrong because we believe killing extinguishes consciousness forever and still do it. So while it may seem to some that Seth devalued the natural environment (I don't feel he did), it may just be that he knew things we don't.

I thought this quote from Sue Watkins' book kind of touches on what I'm trying to say:

"In your frame of reference, no thing, in your terms, is hurt without giving acceptance to the hurt; without attracting It, and without bringing it to itself; for within your frame of reference, you form your own reality. Not only human beings form their reality, but all consciousness forms its reality.

"This does not mean I am saying, kill, kill, kill," Seth admonished. "You do not understand the holy and sacred nature of life or energy and that you cannot misuse it. You may think you misuse it, but you are not allowed to misuse it. You are not allowed to destroy. While you live with these things, you must deal with them and bear their consequences. If you kill and believe that you kill, you will bear those consequences at this level of your development, but to think that you can destroy a consciousness would make the gods laugh. You cannot destroy one flower seed, much less a man!"

The War of the Idiot Flowers: In Which Dream Fish, Spontaneity, and the Draft Are Kicked Around

Chapter 12, Sue Watkins, Conversations with Seth Vol 2

Quote from: Deb
I have to wonder if Seth's perspective on nature is due to everything physical here in F1 is camouflage, created by us.

Deb, this is an aspect of Seth's teaching which I am not sure that I agree with. When you say the physical is camouflage created by "us", what to you mean by "us"? If "us" means just human beings, that devalues non-human beings (animals, plants, microbes). I think Seth says that physical reality is created by ALL conscious beings, including animals, plants, microbes, atoms, EE units, I must look up the Seth writings. If it created by ALL beings, then these beings are NOT devalued.

P.S. I looked up the Seth search engine. It appears that Seth did NOT say that all living beings including microbes create the camouflage of physical reality. It could be that this idea was unconsciously "censored" by Jane Roberts.

P.P.S. I found something which may indicate that Seth acknowledged the role of microbes in creating physical reality:

"It is that desire for life and expression that first of all sparked the entrance into physical reality. The will to live is inherent in each cell or microbe, each molecule, and each smallest possible imaginable segment of life."
—TPS7 Deleted Session January 1, 1984

"In a matter of speaking (underlined), the birds and the insects are indeed living portions of the earth flying, even as, again in a matter of speaking (in parentheses) (with a smile and again with an emphasis upon the word "matter"), bears and wolves and cows and cats represent the earth turning itself into creatures that live upon its own surface. And in a matter of speaking, again, man becomes the earth thinking, and thinking his own thoughts, man in his way specializes in the conscious work of the world—a work that is dependent upon the indispensable "unconscious" work of the rest of nature, a nature that sustains him (all very intently). And when he thinks, man thinks for the microbes, for the atoms and the molecules, for the smallest particles within his being, for the insects and for the rocks, for the creatures of the sky and the air and the oceans."
—DEaVF1 Chapter 4: Session 899, February 6, 1980

"Value fulfillment operates within microbes and nations, within individual creatures and entire species, and it unites all of life's manifestations so that indeed creatures and their environments are united in an overall cooperative venture — a venture in which each segment almost seeks to go beyond itself in creativity, growth, and expression. In a smaller, individual framework, each man and woman, then, is motivated by this same value fulfillment."
—WTH Chapter 6: May 6, 1984

"In Framework 2 the interior power of nature is ever-changing. The dreams, hopes, aspirations and fears of man interact in a constant motion that then forms the events of your world. That interaction includes not only man, of course, but the emotional reality of all earthly consciousnesses as well, from a microbe to a scholar, from a frog to a star."
—NoME Chapter 3: Session 817, January 30, 1978

Quote from: Deb
I have to wonder if Seth's perspective on nature is due to everything physical here in F1 is camouflage, created by us. We see things like animals, and rain forests, the oceans and skies, pollution, deforestation and plastic as real—where Seth may have viewed them as things we've created, that will come and go until we learn respect. He said that civilizations have been created and destroyed... and new ones created in their place. And yet they were not really annihilated and still exist in their own way, such as he explained with the Lumanians in SS.

We have a responsibility to and for the civilization in which we exist, but to a consciousness like Seth that knows the bigger picture, realizes that this can all be transitory, and our destruction of nature is not real destruction in the same way Seth said, "you cannot kill." Yet killing is wrong because we believe killing extinguishes consciousness forever and still do it. So while it may seem to some that Seth devalued the natural environment (I don't feel he did), it may just be that he knew things we don't.

Hi Deb, Hi All,

I hear what you're saying here Deb, and I think that you're onto something. There seems to be an issue related to: 1) hearing, grasping and understanding Seth's philosophy and 2) figuring out how and where to apply it or use it in our physical world reality.

For example Seth tells us that all time is simultaneous. However, this doesn't mean that, in this reality, we should just ignore all the time related issues. Nor does it mean that Seth was suggesting this.

Seth also tells us that civilizations have come and gone and some of these have destroyed themselves. However, this doesn't mean that we should destroy ourselves. Nor does it mean that Seth was suggesting this.

In regards to the natural environment, I'm with you. When I think about all of the things that Seth had to say about the natural environment over the years, I don't think that he devalued it. In fact, if anything, I would say just the opposite. I think that he valued it very much.

- jbseth

Quote from: Sena
When you say the physical is camouflage created by "us", what to you mean by "us"?

What I meant was anything with consciousness creates, and Seth said everything here has consciousness. I think Seth said even the cells in our bodies create their own reality. Those quotes you found about microbes and more were terrific. I especially like the one from WTH about value fulfillment. There's something I find both reassuring and encouraging in "it unites all of life's manifestations so that indeed creatures and their environments are united in an overall cooperative venture — a venture in which each segment almost seeks to go beyond itself in creativity, growth, and expression." Beautiful.

Quote from: jbseth
When I think about all of the things that Seth had to say about the natural environment over the years, I don't think that he devalued it. In fact, if anything, I would say just the opposite. I think that he valued it very much.

Yep. Like any good teacher (or parent), he wants us to evolve and progress in our learning, which he'd remarked occurs here at a donkey-slow rate. Donkeys are prone to being stubborn too. Part of what we need to learn is respect and responsibility

I've been holding onto this quote for a few days, I thought it was terrific. The last two sentences would be great to explore:

"Existence on your plane or any other plane is merely self-hypnosis. As far as an analogy is concerned, this one is very nearly perfect.

"Your existence, and mine for that matter, on any particular level is predetermined by complete concentration or focus of inner selves upon the particular universe in question. And your camouflage patterns can most aptly be compared to the hallucinary effects created by the hypnotist upon his subject.

"Only in this case the hallucinary effects are actual constructions upon the plane in question, and involve problems that must be worked out. The hallucinations appear more or less consistent merely because everyone on that particular level is under the effects of self-hypnosis, and because they have already constructed hallucinary senses, the outer senses, in order to perceive the hallucinary world that they have created.

"This is not meant to deny the importance or the value of the particular hallucinary universe in any way. It has a definite purpose. But the analogy holds, and is more valid than you might think. Complete concentration and focus is your answer.

"When this focus is finished, when the subject tells himself 'Now I will come to, now I have solved the problems that I set out to solve,' then what happens is the withdrawal of the self from the plane. The construction vanishes and is heir to the materials which compose the particular universe."

The Early Sessions, Book 1, Session 37

Quote from: Sena
When Seth says, "You divorce yourselves from nature and nature's intents far more thanthe animals do.", is he telling us that we should NOT divorce ourselves from nature and nature's intents?

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Today, while looking for something else, I came across the following information from Seth in UR2, S708. It's really interesting how this occurs sometimes. 


Anyway, in S708, Seth seems to be telling us that mankind has been studying the nature of consciousness. Furthermore he also says that in doing this, mankind has been using consciousness as if it were apart from nature, in order to see nature and the world from that particular light. (see spoiler below)


From this then, I don't think that when Seth said that we divorce ourselves from nature, he was telling us that we shouldn't do this. Instead, I think he was just making a statement of fact.




- jbseth

Hi All,
Hi Sena,

"When Seth says, "You divorce yourselves from nature and nature's intents far more than the animals do.", is he telling us that we should NOT divorce ourselves from nature and nature's intents?"

I've never really perceived Seth as being the type of person to tell us what we should be doing, according to him or anyone else.
More like he tells us what we are doing. What we could be doing, what courses of action are potentially available, as well as the consequences for following any given course of action. Then let's us make our own decisions.

Imo, with the quoted statement, he was just mentioning the course of action mankind has been following. That this can be used as a learning curve for the value of including what has been previously excluded, if mankind so chooses to pursue it, essentially.

I'm hopeful that as technology progresses, people will choose to purchase products that work in harmony with nature, as opposed to it.  Fossil fuels vs. solar, as an example.

Quote from: T.M.
I'm hopeful that as technology progresses, people will choose to purchase products that work in harmony with nature, as opposed to it.  Fossil fuels vs. solar, as an example.

Hi T.M.,

Did you really mean fossil fuels vs. solar!

I'm thinking that perhaps you may have meant solar vs. fossil fuels, instead.

Just curious.


-jbseth

Hi All,

Hi Jbseth,

Yes Solar vs Fossil fuels

Quote from: T.M.
I've never really perceived Seth as being the type of person to tell us what we should be doing, according to him or anyone else.
More like he tells us what we are doing. What we could be doing, what courses of action are potentially available, as well as the consequences for following any given course of action. Then let's us make our own decisions.

T.M., you are correct. Seth did not give us Commandments, unlike the good old Christian God.
When I began this thread, I was not fully aware of Seth's teachings on the role of microbes in developing the physical environment. I am reading another book which describes how microbes initiated life on Earth by producing oxygen.

"Yet with the microbe, human agency, the choice of which animals to 'live with', as Donna Haraway puts it, is entirely out of our hands. Microbes are the companion species that at some point in the past we made a pact that we must forever fulfil. They colonise our bodies whether we like it or not and are indeed crucial to its continued ability to function."

https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2014/07/25/thinking-with-animals-the-microbe/

"Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival."

https://www.uni-weimar.de/kunst-und-gestaltung/wiki/GMU:BioArt_WS16/Microbiota_and_isolation_of_single_bacteria

I agree that solar power and wind power are the technologies of the future.