Author Topic: Seth teachings and meditation  (Read 44 times)

Offline La874

  • *
  • Posts: 3
Hello all,

I have been interested in spirituality for a while now. I noticed that most of the teachers I follow focus on meditation and consider the majority of thoughts as distraction to be observed at best. Some of Seth teachings on the other hand focus on manipulating thoughts and beliefs. I feel sometimes that there is a contradiction between what spiritual teachers such as Eckhart Tolle and Jiddu Krishnamurti are saying with Seth position. I wonder what do you guys think about this?

Kind Regards

Offline Sena

  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
Quote from: La874
I feel sometimes that there is a contradiction between what spiritual teachers such as Eckhart Tolle and Jiddu Krishnamurti are saying with Seth position. I wonder what do you guys think about this?
Hi La874, welcome to the forum. You have asked a good question. Here is one of Seth's statements on meditation:

"I would like, therefore, to introduce you to yourself. You will not find yourself by running from teacher to teacher, from book to book. You will not meet yourself through following any particular specialized method of meditation. Only by looking quietly within the self that you know can your own reality be experienced, with those connections that exist between the present or immediate self and the inner identity that is multidimensional. There must be a willingness, an acquiescence, a desire. If you do not take the time to examine your own subjective states, then you cannot complain if so many answers seem to elude you. You cannot throw the burden of proof upon another, or expect a man or teacher to prove to you the validity of your own existence. Such a procedure is bound to lead you into one subjective trap after another." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/4A7L5vs

Many spiritual teachers from the Buddha, Christ onwards say that their followers must destroy or weaken the "ego". Seth's teaching on the ego is more complex, and he certainly does not advise us to destroy the ego:

"The inner ego knows when to apply safety valves, and is aware of the danger before the outer ego is alerted. The inner ego is concerned with maintaining the foundations and balance, which is very important, of the whole self, and it is open to messages from the overall entity. The inner ego receives messages through the inner senses, and is aware of realities which the outer ego cannot afford to recognize because of its specialization. In some important aspects the outer ego is supposed to represent to some degree the subdominant personalities who still dwell in the subconscious. When the outer ego is narrow, and poorly represents these subdominant personalities then they rise up in arms, and when conditions are favorable attempt to express themselves through a momentary weakness on the part of the dominant ego. But without even doing this they may momentarily take over or express themselves through a single function, such as speech or motion, while the outer ego is blissfully unaware."
—The Early Sessions Book 3 Session 119 January 6, 1965
« Last Edit: August 02, 2020, 11:22:45 AM by Sena »

Offline jbseth

  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
Hi La874,

Yes, I would agree with you.  In fact, I would say that there are very many differences that exist between / across all of the very many spiritual teachings that exist.

Each one of us gets to take a look at all of this and try to figure out for ourselves, what it is that we believe.

Seth does say quite a bit to say about beliefs. In Seth’s book, “The Nature of Personal Reality”, Seth delves deeply into the topic of beliefs and how they affect us. In this book he also tells us how we can change our beliefs and how, by changing them, we can make positive changes in our lives.

Only you can decide for yourself whether what Seth has to say about beliefs makes more sense than those who consider the majority of thoughts as distraction to be observed at best.

-jbseth

Offline La874

  • *
  • Posts: 3
Quote from: Sena
Quote from: La874
I feel sometimes that there is a contradiction between what spiritual teachers such as Eckhart Tolle and Jiddu Krishnamurti are saying with Seth position. I wonder what do you guys think about this?
Hi La874, welcome to the forum. You have asked a good question. Here is one of Seth's statements on meditation:

"I would like, therefore, to introduce you to yourself. You will not find yourself by running from teacher to teacher, from book to book. You will not meet yourself through following any particular specialized method of meditation. Only by looking quietly within the self that you know can your own reality be experienced, with those connections that exist between the present or immediate self and the inner identity that is multidimensional. There must be a willingness, an acquiescence, a desire. If you do not take the time to examine your own subjective states, then you cannot complain if so many answers seem to elude you. You cannot throw the burden of proof upon another, or expect a man or teacher to prove to you the validity of your own existence. Such a procedure is bound to lead you into one subjective trap after another." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/4A7L5vs

Many spiritual teachers from the Buddha, Christ onwards say that their followers must destroy or weaken the "ego". Seth's teaching on the ego is more complex, and he certainly does not advise us to destroy the ego:

"The inner ego knows when to apply safety valves, and is aware of the danger before the outer ego is alerted. The inner ego is concerned with maintaining the foundations and balance, which is very important, of the whole self, and it is open to messages from the overall entity. The inner ego receives messages through the inner senses, and is aware of realities which the outer ego cannot afford to recognize because of its specialization. In some important aspects the outer ego is supposed to represent to some degree the subdominant personalities who still dwell in the subconscious. When the outer ego is narrow, and poorly represents these subdominant personalities then they rise up in arms, and when conditions are favorable attempt to express themselves through a momentary weakness on the part of the dominant ego. But without even doing this they may momentarily take over or express themselves through a single function, such as speech or motion, while the outer ego is blissfully unaware."
—The Early Sessions Book 3 Session 119 January 6, 1965

Thank you for your response. After reading your reply I think I need to review some of the terminology used here such as inner ego, inner identity and the whole self.

Offline La874

  • *
  • Posts: 3
Quote from: jbseth

Each one of us gets to take a look at all of this and try to figure out for ourselves, what it is that we believe.

Thanks for your reply. I like what you said here. I think it summuarize the whole situation

 

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.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.
Name: Email:
Verification:
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):