Author Topic: Why do we translate dreams into physical terms? Seth gave inconsistent reasons?  (Read 467 times)

Offline happiness

  • **
  • Posts: 38
“It is true that dreams allow the physically oriented self to digest current experience, but it is also true that the experience is then returned to its initial components. Portions of it are retained as ‘past’ physical sense data, but the whole experience returns to its initial direct state.
It exists then, ‘eternally’, separated from the physical clothing that you need in order to understand it.” (Seth speaks, p48, around last paragraph)

In this paragraph, Seth implies that we don our dreams with physical clothing so that we can understand it, because without physical clothing, we won’t understand our dreams. But this contradicts his view/position on page 56:

“There is a final process of dreaming that often masks inner psychological and psychic experience, and unfortunately what you usually recall is this final dream version.
In this final version, the basic experience is converted as nearly as possible into physical terms. It is therefore distorted.
Here the basic experience is hastily dressed up as much as possible in physical clothes. This is not because you want to understand the experience, but because you refuse to accept it as basically nonphysical. All dreams are not of this nature. Some dreams themselves do take place in psychic or mental areas connected with your daily activities, in which case, no dressing-up process is necessary.”

And one more point, the underlined sentence above, I think, should be “Not all dreams are of this nature.” instead.

Offline Deb

  • Head Instigator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
  • ~You are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
When I was first introduced to the Seth materials, I was skeptical because I'm not the kind of person to accept what I'm told until I can "chew" on it a while -- approaching things first from a logical view, then running it through my gut feelings. Also, I was not comfortable with the idea of channeling. I didn't believe in it and celebrity psychics in the 70s and 80s made a bad show of things, being fake and dramatic. But despite my feelings about channeling, I eventually accepted the Seth materials because they felt right to me and I decided I didn't care WHERE the information was coming from, it was empowering (no victims), benevolent and made sense, like I knew this stuff at some time and forgot it. More sense than a lot of things I'd been told by religion and even science and medicine. I got over my channeling aversion when I finally realized that the material was coming from Jane's higher or inner self and not some old ghost or alien. I get the same "downloads of information" at times. A lot of people do. But not to the extent that Jane did.

I'm assuming you are also a skeptic, which is why you're looking so hard for contradictions in the Seth materials. If you didn't like or feel good about the books, you wouldn't have made it very far into the materials. I can say that there were things that I misinterpreted when I first started reading Seth that later made sense to me. I've gone back and re-read the first few books a couple of times, and every time I do that I find more information, and a deeper level of understanding is revealed to me.

I also know that there are some discrepancies, there would have to be. There were times Jane would block certain information (mostly about religion), Rob might make a mistake with his shorthand notes or transcription, book editors may have changed some things. But I feel the bulk of the information is consistent.

That being said, I don't have a problem with the quote, to me it does not seem contradictory. Seth is basically saying that when we recall or interpret our dreams, we (unknowingly) remember/interpret them in a way that relates to what we understand and know in this physical plane because we are blinded to nonphysical reality at this point. That's where need vs. want comes in.

I agree the sentence would read better as "Not all dreams are of this nature." The other way means the same thing, but is awkward and less specific.

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
Hi Deb,

In your post above, you said.

"I can say that there were things that I misinterpreted when I first started reading Seth that later made sense to me. "

That's a really awesome answer Deb.  :)

This same thing has happened to me, many times, and even though I've been reading the Seth information for many years, it still does.

- jbseth

Offline LenKop

  • ***
  • Posts: 235
I can't remember the exact passage, but there is a quote where Rob is reading back some of his transcription to Seth and Seth pulls him up about a mistake he made in his notes.

So there might be many inconsistencies. But there is one constant...

'You create your own reality'

I don't read much Seth any more, not to say I have stopped, but i like to read other stories too (remember, you are writing what you read). I do pick it up and open a 'random' page now and again. And I get plenty of quotes on Facebook to keep me reminded.

These days I prefer to live the lessons and find out for myself. It just takes time.... ;D



With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.
Name: Email:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image
Type the letters shown in the picture:
Twelve divided by two (word):