~Speaking of Seth~

Just throwing this one out there. I came across the following quote on FB and while I've read Seth Speaks, I don't remember Seth saying this about Seth 2:

"She remembered how, in early sessions, Seth had talked about a minimum of three reincarnational existences for most entities — and how "scandalized" she'd been later when she began to realize that Seth had lived many lives. Now, she finds that the idea of simultaneity of "reincarnational" lives is quite acceptable; this fits her emotional and intellectual temperament. When the sessions began, Jane was especially bothered by what she called the trite and popular ideas about reincarnation, mixed up as they were with ideas of good and evil, punishment, etc.

'I go along wholeheartedly with Seth's statement that reincarnation is as much a myth as a fact,' she said now, referring to an ESP class session. In that session, for May 4, 1971, Seth said in part:

'So what you understand of reincarnation, and of the time terms involved, is a very simplified tale indeed.... Reincarnation, in its own way, is also a parable.

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.' "

SS Chapter 22: Session 589

Quote from: DebI don't remember Seth saying this about Seth 2:

Deb, I think the confusion may be because the FB quote mixes up Seth's own words with Rob's comments after the session.

Hi Deb,

What a great topic.

I'll stew on this for a bit and see what kind of goodies I can find regarding what Seth had to say about this topic.

Quote from: DebJust throwing this one out there. I came across the following quote on FB and while I've read Seth Speaks, I don't remember Seth saying this about Seth 2:"She remembered how, in early sessions, Seth had talked about a minimum of three reincarnational existences for most entities — and how "scandalized" she'd been later when she began to realize that Seth had lived many lives. Now, she finds that the idea of simultaneity of "reincarnational" lives is quite acceptable; this fits her emotional and intellectual temperament. When the sessions began, Jane was especially bothered by what she called the trite and popular ideas about reincarnation, mixed up as they were with ideas of good and evil, punishment, etc.'I go along wholeheartedly with Seth's statement that reincarnation is as much a myth as a fact,' she said now, referring to an ESP class session. In that session, for May 4, 1971, Seth said in part:'So what you understand of reincarnation, and of the time terms involved, is a very simplified tale indeed.... Reincarnation, in its own way, is also a parable.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.' "SS Chapter 22: Session 589

Hi Deb,

I have a copy of the Amber-Allen, New World Library, Seth Speaks book. This is the version of the Seth Speaks book with an orange / red cover that can be found at the following "New Awareness Network, Inc. website:

https://sethcenter.com/collections/seth-bundle

It turns out that all of the quotes that you mentioned in your post above are given in Seth Speaks, Chapter 22, Session 589. In this particular version of the Seth Speaks book, the last quote, the one about Seth Two, is given on page 358. The other quotes are given in Robs note during the first break of this session, on page 360.

The information that Seth presents in this session gives us some real interesting insights, not only on Seth Two, but also on the nature of reality itself.  On page 358, it says the following:

"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. As you become more aware of your subjective reality you will therefore, become familiar with greater portions of your own soul. When you think of the soul as a closed system you perceive it as such, and close off from yourself the knowledge of its greater creativity and characteristic.

(9:27) Seth Two does represent what I will become, to some extent, and in your terms, yet when I become what he is he will become something different. In the same terms now, only, Ruburt may become what I am, but then I will be something different.

Each of you are involved in the same kind of relationships, whether or not you are aware of them. Though it seems to you that reincarnational existences involve past and future events, they are existences parallel or adjacent to your own present life and consciousness. Other aspects of your greater identity exist, relatively speaking about or around these."

Then further along in this session, Seth also says:

"I am alive in Seth Two's memory, as a self from which he sprang. Yet the self that I am now is not the self from which he sprang. Only your rigid ideas of time and consciousness make these statements seem strange to you; for in a larger context, again, I can remember Seth Two. All of these connections therefore are open. All psychological events affect all others."

 Hi Deb ,

         Seth2 , great topic , there is a lot to debate about the nature of the S2 entity + entities in general .

         So what is an entity anyway ?
         
         Seth describes both himself + S2 as entities 

         i have said b4 that i believe S2 is in essence a non physical being 
         who has never exp'd any phys' manifestation whatsoever .

         And also that S2 is a prime identity  (as i believe the Christ entity is)

         S2 ,  without having to become physically materialised in any form himself, 
         can create from his own identity , new  self structures +  personalities that do have phys' forms                        + that live in + experience some sort of a physically materialised reality in one univ' or another .
     
         In the same way S2 also created + 'sent out' , the Seth self structure personality/entity that we know .

         from ES 8 sess 407, S2 spkg ,
                                        ''Seth is what i am yet i am more than what Seth is''
                                 also,
                                       '' In one way , in the most important way , + in the only basic way , I am Seth ,
dispensing with certain , characteristics which are mine ,  which i used to contact you.''
                                   +
                                       '' the Seth personality , as you understand it is a legitimate + independent personality which is part of my identity .''

     
      This also has to do with the difference between Seths concept of the creation of identity ,
      + his concept of the creation of self structures   ,             
      which shows that an identity structure is initially created
      + then that identity creates self structures from itself              (the 3 dilemmas)
 
      S2's existence is at the identity level   +   our Seth's existence is at the self structure level
      so it can clearly be seen that S2 is on a 'higher' or 'more intense' level of reality than our Seth's is . 
       
      I hope we can then agree , that the S2/entity is a (prime) identity   from whom
       the self structure that is our Seth/entity ,     was created .     

     
      There are entities + there are entities then + the differences can be quite vast . 
     

      S2 goes on to say that he is also the source of the Seth material + not our Seth which is   
       another contentious point for some sethies + would be good to clear up too .

       i believe that S2 gave our Seth the knowledge that is contained in the Seth material + this seems almost indesputable if you read the sessions from 407 onward in ES 8 .
                                                 
      So  maybe the distinction should be made more clearly between one entity level + another ,  as many sethies make the common mistake of thinking that our Seth/entity + the S2/entity are on the same level of reality as each other , + they are not , except of course in the spacious present , but then it would also be like saying that the S2/entity is 'closer' to or more aware of + immearsed in the spacious present  ,    than our Seth/entity is.     

      Will there be some agreement or not i wonder .   

      a) that S2 is the source of + creator of our Seth .
      b) +  it is  S2 who is the source of the Seth material , even tho our Seth puts the stamp of his own personality on it + 'translates' it to make it intelligible ,  as on S2's level this info' exists as 'pure' knowledge + would be incomprehensible to us .

      I'll leave it there for the while as it becomes fairly complex when spkg of entities + identities + self structures + the 3 dilemmas together .  But it all boils down to the 2 statements above + if you agree or disagree with them .
                         

      peace , paul

Hi All,

In several of the last few paragraphs of Session 588, in Chapter 22 of Seth Speaks, Seth Two, communicates to Rob, via Jane. Then, in the next session, Session 589, Seth comes forward and says the following:

(Note: I could have written the entire contents of session 589 here, but I opted not to because I think it would be easy to miss some of Seth's important points in this session.)


"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 as one."  (Note: here Seth is referring to Seth Two)

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

"We are related in ways quite difficult to explain, united in webs of consciousness.

"The Soul is open ended, therefore. It is not a closed spiritual of psychic system."

"In your terms, Seth Two is more advanced. In your terms, he is more alien, since he cannot relate to your physical existence as well as I do because of my background in it."

"In larger terms, my soul includes my reincarnational personalities, Seth Two, and probable selves."

"Your concept of the soul is simply so limited."

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

"When you think of the soul as a closed system you perceive it as such, and close off from yourself the knowledge of its greater creativity and characteristic."

"I am alive in Seth Two's memory, as a self from which he sprang. Yet the self that I am now is not the self from which he sprang. Only your rigid ideas of time and consciousness make these statements seem strange to you; for in a larger context, again, I can remember Seth Two. All of these connections therefore are open. All psychological events affect all others."



I think what Seth is saying here is that Seth Two is a kind "of consciousness that cannot be deciphered in physical terms."  Furthermore, Seth is related to Seth Two, "in ways quite difficult to explain".  Seth also says, "You can imagine Seth Two as a future portion of me if you prefer, and yet far more is involved."

I take this to mean that the relationship between Seth and Seth Two is quite complex.

Seth also says, "In your terms, Seth Two is more advanced. In your terms, he is more alien, since he cannot relate to your physical existence as well as I do because of my background in it." However, then he also says, "In larger terms, my soul includes my reincarnational personalities, Seth Two, and probable selves."

Finally he says, "Your concept of the soul is simply so limited.", "Each "part" of the soul contains the whole", and "When you think of the soul as a closed system you perceive it as such, and close off from yourself the knowledge of its greater creativity and characteristic."

From this then, I think what Seth is saying here is that when we limit ourselves to believing that Seth is this and that Seth Two is that, we close ourselves off to the knowledge and understanding of the larger terms that actually do exist in their complex and "difficult to explain" relationship.

Quote from: jbsethI think what Seth is saying here is that Seth Two is a kind "of consciousness that cannot be deciphered in physical terms."  Furthermore, Seth is related to Seth Two, "in ways quite difficult to explain".  Seth also says, "You can imagine Seth Two as a future portion of me if you prefer, and yet far more is involved."

I take this to mean that the relationship between Seth and Seth Two is quite complex.

Seth also says, "In your terms, Seth Two is more advanced. In your terms, he is more alien, since he cannot relate to your physical existence as well as I do because of my background in it." However, then he also says, "In larger terms, my soul includes my reincarnational personalities, Seth Two, and probable selves."

jbseth, thanks for this quote. Seth repeatedly said that what he could reveal of the truth through the medium of Jane (Ruburt) was limited. This means that each us of will need to interpret the Seth teachings in accordance with our level of understanding. Once we make such an interpretation, to proclaim that interpretation as a dogmatic truth would entirely contradict the spirit of the Seth teachings.

Still trying to get my head around what Seth was explaining about Seth2 (I'm going to refer to them as S1 and S2 hereafter). I don't really need to understand that deeply, I'm just curious and trying to put together the big picture.

Quote from: jbsethI am as aware of my probable selves, incidentally, as I am of my reincarnational existences. Your concept of the soul is simply so limited.

Aside from everything else, I think Seth has said this before (as he was also aware of other's probable and reincarnational existences), but I wonder if when we're out of this existence and back in Framework2 we are also aware of all of these? Like this is typical knowledge...? Just wondering, I know there is no answer. But I find it intriguing.

Quote from: jbseth"Each "part" of the soul contains the whole – a concept I am sure will startle you."

That just sounds so much like a hologram to me. I also don't understand how they work exactly, but I get the idea. Also reminds me of the dna in each of our cells -- each cell essentially contains the whole as the whole contains each cell.

This:

Quote from: jbsethSeth Two does represent what I will become, to some extent, and in your terms, yet when I become what he is he will become something different. In the same terms now, only, Ruburt may become what I am, but then I will be something different.

next to this:

Quote from: jbseth
I am alive in Seth Two's memory, as a self from which he sprang.Yet the self that I am now is not the self from which he sprang. Only your rigid ideas of time and consciousness make these statements seem strange to you;

Well he got that right. I've been thinking S2 is sort of an oversoul to S1, and yet S1 says that S2 sprang from S1. So maybe I'm hung up on that sequential existence thing. All this time I've been picturing this system of hierarchy in my mind, where ATI is from where all things originate, then there are oversouls under ATI, souls under those oversouls which become another level of oversouls to those 'below' them, over and over...  jeez.

Quote from: voidypaulSeth describes both himself + S2 as entities 

Does Seth ever define entity? If it is a gestalt consciousness with no hierarchy but only differences (each 'unit' being just a different aspect of the whole), then 'oversoul' is a misleading term because the 'over' part suggests hierarchy to me.

Quote from: voidypaulAnd also that S2 is a prime identity  (as i believe the Christ entity is)

More terminology, prime also suggests hierarchy to me. Unless you mean prime as in focus or pureness of intentions. What I'm trying to say is that it seems that people incarnate here into many different personalities, situations, genders, things to learn; where S2, ATI, the Christ entity are more focused accomplishing something more specific. ATI and S2, not having been materialized, are removed from the earthly stuff the rest of us deal with.

Quote from: voidypaulWill there be some agreement or not i wonder .   

      a) that S2 is the source of + creator of our Seth .
      b) +  it is  S2 who is the source of the Seth material , even tho our Seth puts the stamp of his own personality on it + 'translates' it to make it intelligible ,  as on S2's level this info' exists as 'pure' knowledge + would be incomprehensible to us .

I'm not even sure what I just said, let alone agree about anything. I originally thought S1 was an aspect of S2, so in that case I could say S2 is the source and creator of S1. But that business about "I am alive in Seth Two's memory, as a self from which he spring," well, that just threw me off into the bushes.

As far as S2 being the source of the Seth material, yes I can imagine that. As Jane channeled S1, it seems S1 did the same for S2. The 'distance' between S2 and Jane is maybe too great, due to S2 not having ever materialized in this realm, as you explained. A go-between, interpreter, a being that has experience in both realms could be needed. So then, could there be a S3? S4? Maybe ATI is the source of the Seth material, with several levels of translators along the transmission path. Imagine how much distortion there could be! Although I think exponentially less distortion the closer the translator to the source.

OK that's enough, I've given myself a headache.

Quote from: Debbut I wonder if when we're out of this existence and back in Framework2 we are also aware of all of these?

Deb, thanks for trying so hard that you gave yourself a headache! In the question above you seem to be asking about what happens after death. I think Robert Monroe's books give us some hints about this. He went to one place where the people did not realize they were dead - they just carried on their previous existence. The more awareness we have in this existence, the more we will have when we are in Framework2.

Also of interest are the books written by Anthony Borgia, who channelled Hugh Benson. Hugh Benson was a Roman Catholic priest who died before 1920. What he found after death was that devout Catholics went to "Roman Catholic heaven" where chuch services etc. continued as before. Benson himself obviously had a lot more awareness. The books are all available for free download:

https://new-birth.net/other-stuff/books-we-love/books-on-life-after-death/#borgia

Quote from: SenaThe more awareness we have in this existence, the more we will have when we are in Framework2.

Well then I guess we Sethies are better prepared then most. As Seth said, we take our beliefs with us. At least for some of the time, until we acclimate. While I'm not anxious to move on, I'm looking forward to it in a way due to curiosity. I'm hoping I adjust quickly, sort of like "woo hoo, I made it across, now what?"

I'll check into the books link, thanks.

Today i was looking at this interview and Lyssa Royal said about someone else channeling Seth.The thing i couldn't understood the name fully.She was talking too fast for my non-native comprehension...The interview is very intersting...There is a part 2 when Lyssa channels the Pleiadian name Sasha and answer the questions from the guy.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn8dd21j5bE

Quote from: myststarsLyssa Royal said about someone else channeling Seth

Myststars, can you give me an idea of where you might have heard that on this video? It's pretty long, I'm not sure I'll have to the time to listen to the whole thing but you have my curiosity going.


I've listened to a bit and about 8 minutes in she talks about Tom Massari, says that he was the channeling mentor of Daryl Anka/Bashar.

Lyssa: "At the time he was channeling Seth..."
Interviewer: "Oh, wow, this was after Jane Roberts?"
Lyssa: "Yes, so this was still... maybe late 70s, early 80s now?"

Seth said he would not come through anyone but Jane. Hmmmm.

I just had to add this Tom Massari "Abram" video about Jesus and the Crucifixion. The concept of Jesus being an alien hybrid comes up once again! This video is Part 2, he goes into the alien hybrid theory in Part 1.

Quote from: SenaQuote from: jbsethI think what Seth is saying here is that Seth Two is a kind "of consciousness that cannot be deciphered in physical terms."  Furthermore, Seth is related to Seth Two, "in ways quite difficult to explain".  Seth also says, "You can imagine Seth Two as a future portion of me if you prefer, and yet far more is involved."I take this to mean that the relationship between Seth and Seth Two is quite complex.Seth also says, "In your terms, Seth Two is more advanced. In your terms, he is more alien, since he cannot relate to your physical existence as well as I do because of my background in it." However, then he also says, "In larger terms, my soul includes my reincarnational personalities, Seth Two, and probable selves."jbseth, thanks for this quote. Seth repeatedly said that what he could reveal of the truth through the medium of Jane (Ruburt) was limited.  Once we make such an interpretation, to proclaim that interpretation as a dogmatic truth would entirely contradict the spirit of the Seth teachings.

Hi Sena,

In your post above you said, "Seth repeatedly said that what he could reveal of the truth through the medium of Jane (Ruburt) was limited. "

I agree with you here, in the Early Sessions, Seth talks about how it is not possible to transfer a message from one consciousness to another without there being a distortion of the original message. Of course this message along with all of Seth's other messages all came to us through his communication with Jane and so what we end up with here, is what is sometimes referred to as the "Philosopher's Dilemma".

Example of Philosophers Dilemma:

Seth Says: "My messages through Jane are distorted".

If this comment is true, then this comment is must be distorted.
On the other hand, if this comment is distorted, then it can't be true.



You also say, "This means that each us of will need to interpret the Seth teachings in accordance with our level of understanding. "

Again, I completely agree with you here. Not only this, but I believe that we all do this anyway, not only with Seth's teachings, but with all the other teachings and messages that come to us during our lives. This includes teachings from the various religions and philosophies, other channeled messages, psychic mediums, conspiracy theories, information on UFO's, Near Death Experiences, Ghosts and apparitions, Demons, Satan, Heaven, Hell, an on, and on, and on.....

I also believe that we all do this and furthermore, we all make up our own individual minds as to what we believe is true and what is not true.  Furthermore, we also constantly change and grow as we travel through life and so what we believe to be true today, may not necessarily be valid for us tomorrow.


Then you said, "Once we make such an interpretation, to proclaim that interpretation as a dogmatic truth would entirely contradict the spirit of the Seth teachings".

While I understand what your statement means, I'm not really sure why you felt the need to make this statement. Could you please be a little more specific about this please? Thanks.

Quote from: jbsethThen you said, "Once we make such an interpretation, to proclaim that interpretation as a dogmatic truth would entirely contradict the spirit of the Seth teachings".

While I understand what your statement means, I'm not really sure why you felt the need to make this statement. Could you please be a little more specific about this please? Thanks.

jbseth, as you have asked me to be specific, I will say that I had voidypaul in mind when I wrote that. But I will also say that we all, including myself, have a tendency to be dogmatic, and we need to watch that.

As you have also referred to UFO's in your post, I shall comment on that. As recently as 18 months ago, I was really sceptical about channelling, UFO's etc. Then I gradually became interested in the Seth teachings. Now I ask myself, if I accept the Seth teachings, might there also be some truth in the accounts of extraterrestrials/extradimensionals written by apparently sane, sensible people?

Quote from: Deb

Quote from: myststarsLyssa Royal said about someone else channeling Seth

Myststars, can you give me an idea of where you might have heard that on this video? It's pretty long, I'm not sure I'll have to the time to listen to the whole thing but you have my curiosity going.


I've listened to a bit and about 8 minutes in she talks about Tom Massari, says that he was the channeling mentor of Daryl Anka/Bashar.

Lyssa: "At the time he was channeling Seth..."
Interviewer: "Oh, wow, this was after Jane Roberts?"
Lyssa: "Yes, so this was still... maybe late 70s, early 80s now?"

Seth said he would not come through anyone but Jane. Hmmmm.

She was in the select club of "old" generation channelers that begun before 1990.

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: jbsethThen you said, "Once we make such an interpretation, to proclaim that interpretation as a dogmatic truth would entirely contradict the spirit of the Seth teachings".

While I understand what your statement means, I'm not really sure why you felt the need to make this statement. Could you please be a little more specific about this please? Thanks.

jbseth, as you have asked me to be specific, I will say that I had voidypaul in mind when I wrote that. But I will also say that we all, including myself, have a tendency to be dogmatic, and we need to watch that.

As you have also referred to UFO's in your post, I shall comment on that. As recently as 18 months ago, I was really sceptical about channelling, UFO's etc. Then I gradually became interested in the Seth teachings. Now I ask myself, if I accept the Seth teachings, might there also be some truth in the accounts of extraterrestrials/extradimensionals written by apparently sane, sensible people?

Hi Sena, we live in a camouflage reality,  a system of symbols and metaphors that we mistake for concrete things.

If we experience "something"  - it happens in our mind/psyche. If a personality, thought form, archetype or whatever manifests in someones experience (the psyche) it take the form a wolf man, loch ness monster, ET or Dumbo the elephant, or Krishna or Superman.

Whatever the "form" is, is a symbol or metaphor, it's irrelevant, and usually cultural specific. It's the message or communication that matters, which may be from our own selves, or a source outside of us, that comes through us.

Another common thing is that when people are stuck, don't trust themselves, their own abilities is that they will work out their issues by giving power to an external figure (in the physical world, or purely in their psyche), a "vision" ET contact or whatever will give them the experience they need (to get them moving, unstuck) but have refused to consciously allow
It's always something that happens "to them" rather than something they CHOSE to participate in, or created themselves.

We all do this sort of thing, so I'm not trying to say it's good or bad or whatever, Seth also talks about this in the context of multiple personality disorder, where one personality is weak and fearful, another is strong and dominating. In a healthy person, these seeming opposites are all integrated and acknowledge for what they are.

Jung also talks at length about this topic, and many of his comments and insights/observations from hundreds of people are very similar to what Seth says.

The thing to remember is that whatever someone FEELS if real and true, is real and true FOR THEM.
Whether it happened in physical reality, or was a psychotic or drug induced hallucination, or whether it was imaginary, or whether it was a mystical/religious vision really doesn't matter.

The experience is just as REAL and valid for them, no matter the source.
When I read mumbo-jumbo books, I looked for what is the overall message in the book and I don't care if any of happened, or it was channeled or it was entirely fictional. But that is me.

The "concrete" world around us if full of "facts" that are true in a relative sense.
To me whatever "story" science comes up with to explain things, is just a competing story with other older narratives that are equally true and real, but we dismiss them as being primitive / religious metaphor etc.

Quote from: Batfan007Another common thing is that when people are stuck, don't trust themselves, their own abilities is that they will work out their issues by giving power to an external figure (in the physical world, or purely in their psyche), a "vision" ET contact or whatever will give them the experience they need (to get them moving, unstuck) but have refused to consciously allow
It's always something that happens "to them" rather than something they CHOSE to participate in, or created themselves.

John, thanks for your feedback.
It seems to me that Seth was not consistent in the idea that everything we see is camouflage reality. He stated clearly that the Christ Being will return to Earth before 2075. Will Christ "really" come, or will that be just another aspect of camouflage reality?
There may be many reasons for someone believing or not believing in something.