COVID in America

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Lately I've been picking up some intuitive nudges to once again go back and take a look at what Seth had to say about epidemics in the first few sessions of NOME.

The other day, I did this and in doing so, I picked up on something that I'm not sure I recognized previously. This has to do with why we're having a Covid mass event here in America.




In recapping the first few sessions of NOME, here's what Seth has to say.

First he starts out by pointing out that a person's private experience can't be separated from his religious / philosophical beliefs, his cultural environment or his political framework.

Then, in talking about epidemics he tells us that they can't be answered from a biological standpoint alone.  He says that yes, we can study a virus and yes we can come up with an inoculation and we can administer this inoculation to the population. He also acknowledges that this process does work and it has worked with polio for example. However, he also tells us that the shortsightedness of such procedures is generally overlooked because of the definite short term advantages of it.

Then he tells us that there are some "insidious variables" operating here and these insidious variables are caused by the small framework in which these mass epidemics are considered.  What exactly is he talking about here?


Well, first of all he tells us that the causes of these epidemics are not biological. Biology is just the carrier of a "deadly intent". It's the "deadly intent" that's the real issue here.


And what's the cause of this deadly intent?

Seth says that the environment in which an outbreak occurs points to the political sociological and economic conditions that have evolved, causing such disorder. Seth says that often epidemic outbreaks occur when political or social action has failed change a bad condition, making any changes to the condition appear to be hopeless.

He says that initially there's a "psychic" contagion, and this psychic contagion is "despair". Seth says that despair moves faster than a mosquito or any outward carrier of a given disease.

He says that it is despair that brings about the activation of the virus.  He says that despair fires rages inwardly and that this kind of psychic contagion, can leap from bed to bed and heart to heart.

He tells us that despair automatically lowers the body's defenses. He tells us that if certain viruses are triggered to higher activity or overproduction by "mental states", such as despair, then they can become "deadly".




Ok, so what social issues have we been dealing with here, in the US.

One of these has to do with the mass shootings here in the US. For over 20 years now, even before the Columbine shooting, in the late 1990's, we have been dealing with this mass shooting issue. Not only school shootings but other shootings as well. It seems like for the last 20 plus years, every once in a while, we have a random shooting incident where someone goes out and shoots a bunch of people. This is craziness. Time and time again, these mass shooting incidences have occurred and each time this has brought up issues like gun control, assault rifles, the right to bear arms and mental health issues. Has anything actually been done to stop any of this in our society? Not really. Are some people perhaps feeling some hopelessness and despair about this issue? Yes, I think they are.

Another issue has to do with woman's rights. An example of what I'm referring to here is the #MeToo movement and the sex ring issues.  Are some people perhaps feeling some hopelessness and despair about these issues. I think they are.

Then there's the issues around racism and the Black Lives Matter movement which has been going on for some time now. Starting even before Colin Kaepernick, the NFL football player, who decided not to stand up during the playing of the National Anthem. Are some people perhaps feeling some hopelessness and despair about this issue. I think they are.

Are there people in our society who are perhaps feeling some hopelessness and despair about certain social issues? Yes, I think there are. Could this be the reason why we're having a COVID epidemic situation here in the US? Yes, given what Seth has to say about epidemics, I think that this is very possible.


- jbseth

[Sena]

Are there people in our society who are perhaps feeling some hopelessness and despair about certain social issues? Yes, I think there are. Could this be the reason why we're having a COVID epidemic situation here in the US? Yes, given what Seth has to say about epidemics, I think that this is very possible.

jbseth, for this post I shall leave Seth's teaching on one side and look at the Covid problem from the medical/social viewpoint. The USA is a country where civil liberties are guaranteed by the Constitution. China is the opposite, and China claims to have practically eliminated the virus. The Chinese government has made it compulsory for every citizen to download the Covid app for their smartphones. With this app, the Chinese government can trace every movement of every citizen. That is how they claim to have controlled Covid. That kind of violation of civil liberties can't happen in the USA.

[Deb]

My tendency is to look at this from a larger point of view. Not covid in the US as much as covid as a world-wide event. That makes me look back to the origins... It started in China, then with the hardest hit areas, in the beginning, being northern Italy and Iran. Later, hardly a country in the world spared. How the was the US affected as compared to the rest of the world? I'd have to do the math.

And then there's the matter of who was more affected, as far as vulnerability and mortality rates. That would be based on age (the elderly) and those with additional pre-existing conditions.

From a Sethian POV, I think it's more complicated.

[Sena]

And then there's the matter of who was more affected, as far as vulnerability and mortality rates. That would be based on age (the elderly) and those with additional pre-existing conditions.

From a Sethian POV, I think it's more complicated.

Deb, as you say from a Sethian point of view the question of choosing to die comes in. If I was living in Iran under an Islamic dictatorship I might want to pass on.

[LarryH]

How the was the US affected as compared to the rest of the world? I'd have to do the math.

The U.S. has 4% of the world's population, 20% of the world's Covid cases, and 19% of the world's Covid fatalities. I check this website from time to time: https://bing.com/covid?form=msntrk

I ran across the "Swiss Cheese Strategy" today. It is a 4-layer strategy and appears that it could work as well as a hard lockdown without the severe economic impact. https://tomaspueyo.medium.com/coronavirus-the-swiss-cheese-strategy-d6332b5939de

[jbseth]

My tendency is to look at this from a larger point of view. Not covid in the US as much as covid as a world-wide event.

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Yes, that is another point of view.

I also recognize that since maybe the late twentieth century, "SARS" came out of China, "Bird Flu" came out of China, and "Ebola" came out of Africa.  Interestingly enough, even though these diseases seemed to suddenly erupt onto the world scene, none of them appeared to have largely effected the entire world, or the US, on a mass event scale.

The following idea has just now intuitively come to me as I was writing this and it does seem to be supported by from some of Seth's teachings.

I suspect that perhaps what was happening here is that these may have been "trial runs" that the world's psyche has been testing out to see if the world was "ripe" for a COVID type mass event. For these specific scenarios, (SARS, Bird Flu, and Ebola) apparently, the answer was no. Maybe we should have been paying more attention to what was going on here with these.

Anyway, for me, the fact that COVID appears to have come out of China, is not that big of a deal. Any mass event like this, is going to start somewhere and if it really is a mass event scenario, (apparently unlike SARS, Bird Flu or Ebola), then it's going to take hold and spread.



What is a big deal however, is that this time, the world conditions apparently were "ripe" for an epidemic type of mass event, and this time, this disease, "COVID" took hold and took off.


The reasons why COVID affected other countries like Italy and Iran, I suspect has its own story, and in regards to that story, I tend to believe what Seth says in NOME. This probably had something to do with the political, social, and economic conditions that were taking place in those countries at this time.

I personally don't feel knowledgeable enough to actually talk about those conditions in these other countries, but I do understand some of what's been going on here in the US.



On top of all of this, when you start looking at the COVID numbers being reported in other countries, there are some other factors that may be biasing the reported numbers. One being that the governments of some countries probably don't want to release or share with the rest of the world what's "really" taking place their country. Here I'm talking about perhaps countries like China and Russia. Then again, there are probably many poor countries who don't really either have the resources or don't want to spend the resources to get the results.

This is just another point of view on this topic.

-jbseth

[Sena]

On top of all of this, when you start looking at the COVID numbers being reported in other countries, there are some other factors that may be biasing the reported numbers.

jbseth, that is correct. The USA being an open society, there is absolutely no concealment of numbers, whereas in Sri Lanka there is a terrific concealment of numbers. This fact about Sri Lanka was revealed by a secret association of medical professionals. These professionals fear that if their identities were revealed, their lives would be in danger.

[leidl]

Hello jbseth and all,

jbseth, this is an excellent topic, and you've given us a lot to work with here.  Thank you. 

First he starts out by pointing out that a person's private experience can't be separated from his religious / philosophical beliefs, his cultural environment or his political framework

This is a unique angle on the oft-mentioned "Your beliefs create your reality."  Instead of presenting beliefs as a cause and reality as an effect, he has wedded the two of them together into a gestalt of sorts.  I'm liking this, and it fits well with his claim that our ideas about cause and effect are not strictly true.

Another issue has to do with woman's rights. An example of what I'm referring to here is the #MeToo movement and the sex ring issues.  Are some people perhaps feeling some hopelessness and despair about these issues

I'm a female, but never felt despair on the issue of sexism until I attempted to lead a discussion on the topic of the #metoo movement with my book club, which consists mostly of older men.  Oh my.  Of course some men have allowed their perspectives to evolve, and Sethians likely do quite well on this topic and many other social issues, considering we know that our entities are not aligned with a single gender or race.

He says that initially there's a "psychic" contagion, and this psychic contagion is "despair". Seth says that despair moves faster than a mosquito or any outward carrier of a given disease.

Well, if cause and effect are not strictly true, then "contagion" isn't even the best word, right?  Because that word only makes sense if cause and effect are real.  Yes, those terms have a relative truth in our shared reality, but what we're going for is that overview that blows our perspective wide open.  Seth's use of the word "contagion" is him putting things in terms we can understand.

I just spent a little time studying charts that attempt to map out levels of happiness and life satisfaction over time throughout the world, to see if the areas that have the most despair are the same places that have sky high numbers of Covid cases.  This exercise was interesting but ultimately not worth saying much about, because of the fact that we know the reported numbers of cases are not accurate, as others have pointed out.  Self-reporting about mental health is probably suspect as well.

For me, the takeaway here so far is that our experiences and beliefs cannot be separated from our cultural realities.  The pandemic isn't a result of our beliefs, it is a representation of them. If I want to know what I believe, all I have to do is study reality--my own, and our shared one.  We live in a global culture now, at least compared to what we had a few decades ago.  Perhaps pandemics will be more common as a result of this, at least until we make the "shift" referred to in other threads.

[Sena]

Seth says that the environment in which an outbreak occurs points to the political sociological and economic conditions that have evolved, causing such disorder. Seth says that often epidemic outbreaks occur when political or social action has failed change a bad condition, making any changes to the condition appear to be hopeless.

He says that initially there's a "psychic" contagion, and this psychic contagion is "despair". Seth says that despair moves faster than a mosquito or any outward carrier of a given disease.

He says that it is despair that brings about the activation of the virus.  He says that despair fires rages inwardly and that this kind of psychic contagion, can leap from bed to bed and heart to heart.

jbseth, leidl, thanks for highlighting the topic of contagion.
leidl, I think we have to take Seth's statement on cause-and-effect with a pinch of salt. I think what Seth is objecting to is the assumption of materialistic scientists that everything is due to a physical cause. Even a mental condition like depression is assumed to be due to an imbalance of brain chemicals. Scientists reject the idea of psychic contagion, but we need to take it seriously. The following is a quote from The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events:

"Initially there is a psychic contagion: Despair moves faster than a
mosquito, or any outward carrier of a given disease. The mental state
brings about the activation of a virus that is, in those terms, passive."

[jbseth]

Hi leidl, Hi All,

In NOME, Ch1, S801, Seth says the following:

A person's private experience happens in the context of his psychological and biological status, and basically cannot be separated from his religious and philosophical beliefs and sentiments, and his cultural environment and political framework —

And then about 5 paragraphs later, in the very same session, he says:

[...] (Loudly and humorously:) I do not want to get too entwined (underlined) in this analogy, however; but as the individual's personal experience must be seen in the light of all of these issues, so mass events cannot be understood unless they are considered in a far greater context than usual.

Here it seems to me that Seth is pointing out that often, we don't seem to recognize that a person's private experience, has to do with a much larger context, (a person's religious, cultural and political framework) than we typically recognize.  Then, along with this, he also seems to be pointing out the same thing about mass events; that often they have to do with a much larger context, than we typically assign to them.  I hadn't really thought about this in terms of cause and effect. You make a very interesting point about that. Hmm.  



Seth's comments about "cause and effect" are always interesting because Seth says that there is no such thing as cause and effect. However, occasionally, some nine months after a couple has sex, a baby is born. This sure seems to imply that a "cause and effect" type of scenario actually occurs in our reality, and so this can be confusing.

But in other places, Seth says that at very instant, at every moment, we completely create our reality anew. In our reality, a tree seems to grow from a seed, to a sapling, to a small tree, to a large tree over time, but this is not what's actually going on. At each moment, the entire seed, or sapling or small tree or large tree is created anew. There is no time and there is no cause and effect, even though time seems to be occurring in our physical reality and so does cause and effect. In talking to us, Seth often explains things to us in our terms, as if both time and cause and effect do occur, for example, so that we can understand the point that he's trying to make and this can be confusing sometimes.



Regarding your comments about your book club, yes, as a man, when I talk to some of my male friends, I do pick up on some comments from some of them that are, shall I say "unenlightened".  For the most part, many of them do not seem to think about how a woman may perceive things, from a woman's perspective. Personally, I think a lot of this has to do with cultures, but don't get me wrong, there's definitely some unenlighteded thinking in some men.

If I was an actress, I would be extremely angry, if some guy like Harvey Weinstein told me that if I didn't sleep with him, not only would I not get the part, but that he'd blacklist me from other parts as well. Then when I went and complained about this to others, many other women and men told me that, "well, that's just the way it is". Talk about feeling anger and rage and then perhaps hopelessness and despair. Wow, what a load of BS. I wouldn't put up with that nonsense. I think that if I was a women, I'd probably be an extreme feminist.



I'm curious, in the last part of your message you mentioned something about "charts" and mapping out levels of happiness. What were you were talking about / doing there. Was this some sort of astrological charting or something else?


-jbseth

[leidl]

Hi folks! 

The mental state
brings about the activation of a virus that is, in those terms, passive.

Yes, Sena, I agree that the quote above suggests cause and effect.  Here's another, containing a wheel analogy, that suggests cause and effect only exist relative to a limited vantage point.  This is a rather difficult quote, and is going to take some pondering on my part.  It might shed some light on the limited way in which cause and effect are true:

"Pretend that the present moment is like a wheel, with your concentration at the hub. To maintain what you think of as time momentum, the hub is connected by spokes to the exterior circular framework. Otherwise the hub alone would get you nowhere, and your "moment" would not even give you a bumpy ride.

Your journey through time, however, seems to go smoothly, colon: The wheel rolls ever forward. It can roll backward as well, but in your intentness you have a forward direction in mind, and to go backward would seem to divert you from your purpose.

The forward motion brings you into the future, out of the past from which it seems you are emerging. So you plot a straight course, it seems, through time, never realizing in our analogy that the wheel's circular motion allows you to transverse this ongoing road. The hub of the present, therefore, is held together by "spokes." These have nothing to do with your ideas of cause and effect at all. Instead they refer to the circular motion of your own psyche as it seems to progress in time. Each present moment of your experience is dependent upon the future as well as the past, your death as well as your birth. Your birth and your death are built in, so to speak, together, one implied in the other."


—NotP Chapter 8: Session 783, July 12, 1976

Perhaps cause and effect are valid in a sense, but since the future can affect the past, the past can affect the future, and the present can affect both, what we should say is that linear cause and effect is invalid, but circular cause and effect exist?   

In talking to us, Seth often explains things to us in our terms, as if both time and cause and effect do occur, for example, so that we can understand the point that he's trying to make and this can be confusing sometimes.

Yes, jbseth, confusing indeed!  Is it possible that when he denies cause and effect, he is only denying the linear kind of cause and effect we believe we observe, but not the type described above?

The chart I was studying was not astrological, no.  Because I don't relate to my "sun sign," I've never seriously explored astrology.  This is the site I was looking at: https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction

My thought was that perhaps the countries that report the highest happiness levels would be unlikely to attract high levels of Covid.  I find data like this tantalizing, but we don't know much at all about how they conducted the study. 

In the first post in this thread, many despair-inducing conditions in the U.S. are outlined.  One not on the list that should be considered is the isolating effect of spending our lives staring at phones and social media.  If I were to think of a way that the pandemic can be considered as representative of my own mental state, in other words, a way in which I personally am contributing to this mass event, feelings of isolation come to mind.  I enjoy spending time alone, but the kind of surreal cut-off-ness that goes along with modern life is a significant threat to living well.  I don't mean to equate the despair of being immersed in social media with the despair induced by mass shootings and racism, but technology-induced despair is nearly universal, and the pandemic might be seen as a reflection of it.  Just a thought.

[Sena]

Perhaps cause and effect are valid in a sense, but since the future can affect the past, the past can affect the future, and the present can affect both, what we should say is that linear cause and effect is invalid, but circular cause and effect exist?

leidl, cause and effect is an interesting topic we perhaps need to look at rather critically. How I see it is that by rejecting cause and effect, Seth sets himself up in opposition to the Buddhist concept of "dependent origination". This is a massive topic, and I have read about it only rather superficially. It is associated with the Buddhist idea of karma, which Seth rejects. As an example, I'll mention that my wife suffers from a blood disorder. This was diagnosed by a Buddhist friend of ours. When this friend mentioned the diagnosis to us, he seemed rather horrified. This was because, being a Buddhist he believed that my wife must have done something really bad in a previous life!! My wife is a Roman Catholic, and does not believe in that kind of Buddhist nonsense. I think this is the view of cause and effect that Seth is rejecting.

As for other kinds of cause and effect, like if you jump out of a tenth floor window, you are likely to smash your head, is something that we create for ourselves in physical reality.

I'll give you the Wikipedia reference to the Buddhist idea, but it is a diificult read and I have only glanced through it. The title is in the Sanskrit language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

[jbseth]

Hi leidl, Hi Sena, Hi All,

Hi leidl, thanks for that information on the "happiness" charting. Very interesting. 

I agree that Seth's "cause and effect" concept can be confusing.

Kind of like how his there is no time or all time is simultaneous can be confusing.

Sometimes I think about these concepts in terms of an entity and its various reincarnational lives, many of which take place in different time periods and all taking place simultaneous.  Kind of like how the various characters in Jane's, "The Education of Oversoul Seven" series of books all interact with each other across various time periods.

-jbseth

[LarryH]

"These have nothing to do with your ideas of cause and effect at all. Instead they refer to the circular motion of your own psyche as it seems to progress in time. Each present moment of your experience is dependent upon the future as well as the past, your death as well as your birth. Your birth and your death are built in, so to speak, together, one implied in the other."

This quote helps me a little: one can view pairs of events tied together, each depending on the other. Death cannot occur without a prior birth, just as a birth cannot occur without a future death. The birth does not "cause" the death, it is simply "entangled" with that future event.

[leidl]

Hey all!  I decided to see what my new friend Elias has to say about cause and effect. These excerpts help me make sense of how things like time and cause and effect can be true in relative sense, but in a larger sense not strictly correct.  Still, apparently we are served better by "neutralizing" our beliefs in ideas such as these,  rather than judging them as incorrect.  Probably best to not hurl ourselves out of a window to prove a philosophical point, for example.   

VICKI: So cause and effect is a belief system. Is this correct?

ELIAS: To your way of thinking, yes.

---

ELIAS: Once again I shall express: this is not to say that you shall be eliminating of your belief systems, but you shall be neutralizing them. You shall continue to hold belief systems and hold opinions in regard to these belief systems, but they shall not be affecting. There shall not be any judgment attached with them. Therefore, they are neutralized. Presently, you all hold many, many, MANY belief systems, and there ARE judgments attached with them.

As you move more fully into the exploration of acceptance of belief systems, you may also offer yourself the opportunity to view how very many aspects there are to each singular belief system. They are much more complicated than individuals view them to be!

But each little bird that you allow to fly free from the cage of the belief system serves you well to be moving you more fully into the acceptance, which allows you a wondrous new freedom, a liberation from old creations that no longer serve you well and into the new freedom of the exploration of your own creativity without the binding of the belief systems which hold to you and limit your own freedom and creativity." [session 293, July 01, 1998]

https://www.eliasforum.org/digests/About_Elias.html

Sena, the Buddhist concept of dependent origination is not something I've read about before.  I found a lot of interesting stuff on that wikipedia page--thanks.  Sometimes the religious dogma of Buddhism gives me pause; your experience with the friend who diagnosed your wife's blood disorder deciding your wife did something "bad" in a previous life is an example of this.  Making a negative judgment about someone based on some little belief is exactly why we should be opening the doors of the bird cage and letting those beliefs fly away.

That said, Buddhism as a philosophy contains much wisdom, and I find many Buddhist concepts to be helpful, and enlarge my perspective.

jbseth, I remember you saying in another thread that you found it a peculiar coincidence that Elias's ideas are so weirdly similar to Seth's.  Witnesses to the Elias session I quoted actually ask Elias about this, and he talks about it at some length.  If you go to the document and ctrl + F to search for "Seth", you'll find some interesting comments.

LarryH, each time I read the wheel metaphor, I feel like I "get it" a little more.  But I'm not sure I've ever read a passage from Seth that demands as much brain power as that one does.   

[Sena]

VICKI: So cause and effect is a belief system. Is this correct?

ELIAS: To your way of thinking, yes.

---

ELIAS: Once again I shall express: this is not to say that you shall be eliminating of your belief systems, but you shall be neutralizing them. You shall continue to hold belief systems and hold opinions in regard to these belief systems, but they shall not be affecting.

leidl, thanks for that quote from Elias. It is quite interesting that he says that cause-and-effect is a belief system. This does NOT mean that the idea of cause-and-effect is false or irrational, but Elias is telling us to examine our belief systems. If we take the example of a 71-year-old man (like myself) who tests positive for Covid, I could think of the 5% mortality rate at that age, think that I have no influence on the cause-and-effect, and think that I might be in that 5%. Or I could think that I am not ready to disengage, I have more things to experience and do, there are people who depend on me, so I will see the virus off.

[jbseth]

Hi leidl, Hi All,

I found this definition of the word "plagiarism" from Google.

Plagiarism:

noun

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
"there were accusations of plagiarism"


When you look at most channeled information, in some cases, some channels will use the same or similar words or terms that were used by others. I know of some channels who say for example, that "You create your reality" and I know of some who use the term, "All That Is" or something very similar, to describe some sort of supreme being. But for the most part, that is about it, in regards to something that they will say that is nearly the same as Seth.


However, I don't know of any other channels, with the possible exception of perhaps Elias and maybe Abraham, who talks about families of consciousness. Furthermore in addition to this, Elias also claims that there are not 10, not 6, not 12, not an infinite number, but 9, exactly 9 families of consciousness. Just like Seth. Then, along with this, Elias also claims that these 9 consciousness families also have names. And not just any names but very specific names. And not just any specific names, but from what I could tell the exact same names that Seth used to describe his families of consciousness. Is that plagiarism?

This set of some major red flags for me.

While I didn't look into this matter any closer than that, I wouldn't be surprised to find that each one of these families also has a nearly identical description, as that given by Seth.



Then, out of curiosity, I also took a look at what Elias has to say about Jesus on their site.

Some channels also talk about Jesus, but to the best of my knowledge, I've never come across anyone, outside of Seth, who claimed that the Jesus of the Christianity was a conglomeration of 3 people. Not just 3 people, but specifically John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul (Saul). To the best of my knowledge, Seth is the only one who's ever proposed such an idea.

Then, in checking out, what Elias has to say about Jesus, he also says that Jesus was a conglomeration of 3 beings (OK so the red flags are flying again). Then along with this, he also says that these 3 beings are John, Jesus and Paul (OK red flags are flying high now). Is that plagiarism?


Apparently someone by the name of Paul Helfrich, wrote a PDF document comparing Elias to Seth (see link below).  If you go to page 35 and take a look at page 35 to page 40 or so, of this 55 page PDF file, you will find quite a long list of Seth terms that Elias talks about and appears to use. 


https://www.paulhelfrich.com/library/Helfrich_P_A_Seth_Elias_Comparative_Overview.pdf



Consider this. A person named Abby who is familiar with the Seth information decides that she'd going to make some money by selling books. Abby isn't particularly psychically gifted and so she plans to sell these books by claiming that she channels a personality, who calls itself "Noah". When Abby starts writing up these channeled messages from "Noah", she draws "Noah's" ideas directly from the Seth information.

In Noah's channeled messages, Noah says, "You create your reality".  Noah also talks about "CU units", "value fulfillment" and "families of consciousness", saying that there were 9 of them and then proceeds to label each one of them with the exact same words, that Seth used, Sumari, etc. Then, in addition to this, just like Seth, Noah also says that Jesus was really 3 people, John, Jesus and Paul. How original.

Then, in later channeled material, Noah talks about how Abby, who had just recently started to read the Seth information is wondering why Noah's take on the Seth information is so "different" than Seth's (when, in fact, its nearly identical).

In the Noah channeled material, Noah continually reiterates the Seth information, each time putting a slightly different spin on it and also quite often pointing out how it's really different than the Seth information. All the while using Seth specific terms like "value fulfillment", and "dream art scientist".

If a person were to actually do this, do you think that this "Noah" channeled material, "might" actually end up looking a lot like the Elias material?


You can see that I'm extremely skeptical, in regards to the Elias material, and this is why.  It's also OK with me, however, if others see something else in the Elias material instead.  There is some channeled material, like Seth's, that I really like and others, maybe no so much. 


-jbseth

[LarryH]

jbseth, I think you are on to something. A co-worker long ago liked to say, "If we agreed on everything, one of us wouldn't be necessary." Maybe Elias is not necessary. Then again, I am not tempted to delve into that body of work, so I may never know to what extent Elias may have generated useful material that goes beyond what Seth said. I think different styles of communication may reach different people, but Elias' style of speaking is awkward to my ear, and likely awkward to most ears, so that style is not likely to find many people who prefer it to Seth.

[Sena]

Some channels also talk about Jesus, but to the best of my knowledge, I've never come across anyone, outside of Seth, who claimed that the Jesus of the Christianity was a conglomeration of 3 people. Not just 3 people, but specifically John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul (Saul). To the best of my knowledge, Seth is the only one who's ever proposed such an idea.

Then, in checking out, what Elias has to say about Jesus, he also says that Jesus was a conglomeration of 3 beings (OK so the red flags are flying again). Then along with this, he also says that these 3 beings are John, Jesus and Paul (OK red flags are flying high now). Is that plagiarism?

jbseth, if it is a true fact that Jesus was a conglomeration of 3 beings, Elias also making that statement is not necessarily plagiarism. If I take another example, I state that Hawaii is the 50th State of the United States. I learnt that fact on the internet, but my making the statement does not make me a plagiarist.

[jbseth]

Hi LarryH, Hi Sena, Hi All,

Thanks for your comments guys.

LarryH, I hear what you're saying here and I do agree with you. For me, there are definitely some channeled materials that I don't get into because the style of writing or speaking is awkward or difficult to understand or follow. There are also some that I don't get into because fundamentally, I just don't agree with their message. Then again, there are a few that I don't get into, not because they don't have interesting things to say, but because they seem to be plagiarizing Seth's material. Part of this occurs for me at least partly because Seth's messages seem to hold a lot of truth's, for me.

Interestingly enough, it doesn't seem to bother me nearly so much, when someone plagiarizes one of the channeled materials that I don't get into. Although, I still don't think too highly of anyone plagiarizing someone else's work.


Hi Sena, I hear what you're saying here about the 3 persons of Christ, but I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with you on this.  Furthermore, when a channel then also uses the exact same names for Seth's 9 families of consciousness, and his terms like "value fulfillment" and "dream art scientist", for example, just to name a "few", that's pushing it just a bit too much, "for me".

Again, just because we don't necessarily agree with each other here, this does not mean that I think that you must agree with me on this. I'm just trying to clarify how I see things here, but I'm definitely not trying to convince anyone that they must agree with me on this.



Hi LarryH, Hi Sena, the three of us don't always agree with each other on everything here in this forum, and sometimes I think that we also probably even annoy each other to some degree with some of our comments. However, I always really appreciated and valued your comments and insights here in this forum.  Thanks for being such good long time members here who've occasionally challenged me with your insights as this has helped me to grow and perceive things differently.  


-jbseth

[Sena]

Furthermore, when a channel then also uses the exact same names for Seth's 9 families of consciousness

jbseth, tha same applies. If it is a TRUE FACT that there are 9 families of consciousness, then we cannot say that Elias' statement is a plagiarism.

[Deb]

Some channels also talk about Jesus, but to the best of my knowledge, I've never come across anyone, outside of Seth, who claimed that the Jesus of the Christianity was a conglomeration of 3 people. Not just 3 people, but specifically John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul (Saul). To the best of my knowledge, Seth is the only one who's ever proposed such an idea.

I've really been enjoying this topic.

It's funny, I did what you did, even looking up the word plagiarism mainly because I wasn't sure of the spelling. I totally get your skepticism. I looked up his info on Jesus and the families of consciousness too, mentioned it in the "shift" topic.

Long ago, I was a fan of Abraham-Hicks, and Esther had a generic foreign accent. The concepts were all new and exciting to me at the time. Through them, I found Seth and then decided that Esther is a really just a clever woman with a very good memory, who was rehashing Seth. I consider that a form of plagiarism, and would not feel comfortable in doing something like that myself. On the bright side, Esther has extended Seth's concepts to people who would find pure Seth difficult to read. She dropped the accent years ago. On the dark side, she's exclusively attributing her material to her ability to channel, and is said to be worth $10 million because of it. And then Jerry died and there was no marketing genius to keep her under control, she at times was abusive to her followers. Twice I'd seen her get pissed at someone in the hot seat and before they could get their full question out she'd insist they were done and to leave, waving them off like you'd chase a dog away. Dismissed. The people were crushed. Imagine going to a $200 A-H workshop or a $2,000 A-H cruise to Alaska, being so lucky to get called up to the hot seat, and then being throw out like a piece of trash! Anyway, sorry I got carried away. But her audience is large and they don't question her. They like the message. I imagine most have never heard of Seth.

And then, I suppose a channeler like Esther or Mary would say the reason that their material is so close to Seth is that it's because it's true and reinforces what Seth said about reality. As Sena mentioned in his post about the 9 families of consciousness:

jbseth, the same applies. If it is a TRUE FACT that there are 9 families of consciousness, then we cannot say that Elias' statement is a plagiarism.

How would we know from our current perspective what's real and what's being plagiarized, particularly with this type of material? An easier call if it's someone saying they wrote a poem, research paper or speech that was written by someone else.

Most if not all of the new channelers do remote readings, $250-600 for an hour, some more. Bashar (Daryl Anka) charges $300 plus a $100 booking fee. There's a lot of money to be made in the business if you're good at it. People are always looking to others for guidance and answers, especially during troubled times. A lot of mediums, medical mediums, psychics and channelers sell things on their websites.

I don't know why people do the channeling thing other than for money. Unless they are, or think they are, really channelers and want to help others. I don't think Jane ever charged people, she spent a lot of time answering letters and phone calls and had some private sessions purely to help people (as far as I've read). She did make money from the sales of the books, but not a lot. She deserved to get paid for her hard work. I tried to write a book once, it wasn't easy and I didn't get very far.

People that are just rehashing Seth are reaching an audience that don't want all the details in the Seth books, just the concepts. Then there are others that are curious about, say, Elias and he may give a different twist to something Seth said or even simply a concept. Lynda Dahl does a great job making the Seth material clear, and she admits it all comes from Seth and does not claim that she channeled it. Although she did have her own "personality" that was channeled, but I can't remember the name.

While plagiarism speaks volumes about a person's character, it's actually only illegal if it infringes on an author's intellectual property rights. I wonder too, then, if that can be gotten around by changing things up enough to not be a direct quote. Trademarks and copyrights are sometimes hard to protect, because if you make enough small changes it becomes your own IP.

[leidl]

Hey all,

I just googled "Did Mary Ennis plagiarize Jane Roberts Seth", and the top item returned was a thread on this very site from 2015.  It was posted by someone who never posted again under that same identity, but many others contributed to the thread and I enjoyed the comments, some of which were authored by Deb, naturally. 

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=422.0

jbseth, I appreciate your outlining your viewpoint at length; I understand your skepticism much better now.  My personal take is similar to Sena's, but may change.  I feel like Elias and Seth, in describing families of consciousness, are describing something like the phylogenetic tree that human biologists have shared knowledge of but I don't have a clue about.  Seth and Elias simply share a similar training, like human biologists do, so they speak the same language.

I have no proof of this of course, so I will look more closely at Elias, wearing my "skeptic's goggles".  One of the many ideas common in both Seth and Elias is that we should be looking to ourselves rather than teachers, anyway.  Here's how Elias says it:

"Do not concern yourself with the individual that you recognize as Mary, and do not concern yourself with my energy, either. Listen to yourself, my friend."  Of course, teachers have been saying this for eons, so we won't call this one plagiarism!

I want to listen to myself more and more, though, and thanks to Seth and Elias and all you contributors here, listening to myself is getting more interesting every day.   

The person who posted the 2015 thread on Mary Ennis and Elias mentioned that Elias was evasive when asked to comment on the specifics of individual students in the room, which Seth was not.  I just found a sample of this sort of evasion:

NANCY: "I wonder if you would start off, Elias, by just telling me my family, my essence name, that sort of thing that everyone that seems to be connected with you speaks of.

ELIAS: I have offered this to you at our last meeting.

NANCY: That's right, you did, but I'm not quite sure that I got my name. I didn't have anything to write it down.

ELIAS: Very well. This is acceptable. You may be connecting with Michael [Mary] after this particular session and he shall be offering you the information, and also you may inquire of him to be delivering to you our script of information pertaining to the essence families that I have already given, and this shall be helpful to you in identifying yourself and the qualities you hold within this particular focus.

I shall express to you that although it may seem in certain situations with individuals non-cooperative of myself to not be repeating myself, there is a purposefulness in this, in that there is an exchange occurring during all of these sessions that is within what you would term to be a subjective awareness. This is an inner, so to speak, communication between my energy and your energy, and in this you receive the tone. The reason that you do not hold an objective recall of what has been offered to you is that you are assimilating this information subjectively, and as you assimilate this information you also shall be allowing a bleed-through of that into your objective awareness."

This particular encounter feels like a red flag to me, but I'm going to try to let go of beliefs for and against Mary Ennis at this point.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi Sena, Hi All,

Thanks for your comments Deb. You make some great points here.

I remember that once before, you told us that you found Seth via an Abraham - Hicks connection and I have to think that others must have probably done likewise.

I also think that you've probably pointed me in the right direction in regards to my personal issues with the Elias books and channeled material.

Unlike what Sena has been saying here, I do not believe that this is an issue that really has anything to do with whether something is true or not.  Instead, for me, I think it has to do with whether plagiarism, has been used and whether this has anything to do with the questionable ethics that occur whenever someone makes money off of someone else's legitimate work and does so in violation of the copyright laws. To be honest, when people do this kind of thing, it just seems really sleazy to me and I have no interest in supporting anyone who does this.





Now, let's take a look at what it looks like when someone writes a book and legitimately uses someone else's work in their book. Here I'll refer to Lynda Madden Dahl and her book, "Beyond the Winning Streak".

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Winning-Streak-Conscious-Consistently/dp/0963462903/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=lynda+madden+dahl&qid=1605322156&sr=8-9

By using the "Look Inside" feature that's available at Amazon, notice that this book has what appears to be a legitimate copyright in the front of the book.

First it says, Copyright. Then it gives the copyright circle "c" symbol. After this it says, 1993 by Lynda Madden Dahl. The copyright date here is 1993.

Then in the back of the book, there's a section of "Notes" where for each chapter, Lynda references the footnotes used in this book. For each footnote, she references, for example, the author, the book title, the chapter, and the page number of the source for each of these footnotes.

This type of thing is common practice for most authors who follow the copyright laws and legitimately uses other peoples work.







Now, let's take a look at the book, "Introducing the Nine Essence Families of Consciousness", by David Tate.

https://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Essence-Families-Consciousness-Elias-ebook/dp/B08DL4372Y#reader_B08DL4372Y


By using the Amazon "Look Inside" feature, notice that this book has what appears to be a rather strange copyright in the front of the book.

It says Complied by David L Tate and then it gives the copyright circle "c" symbol. After this however, we get no copyright date what-so-ever. Is this a legitimate copyright?

Then, in the back of the book, there's no section of "Notes" where any references are made for any of the Seth information that appears to be used in this book. Such as the names of the nine families of consciousness. This type of thing is not common practice for most authors who follow the copyright laws.  This is however, the type of thing that someone might do when they are ignoring the copyright laws.


-jbseth

[Deb]

The person who posted the 2015 thread on Mary Ennis and Elias mentioned that Elias was evasive when asked to comment on the specifics of individual students in the room, which Seth was not.  I just found a sample of this sort of evasion:

NANCY: "I wonder if you would start off, Elias, by just telling me my family, my essence name, that sort of thing that everyone that seems to be connected with you speaks of.

First, thanks for the link back to the past post about Elias. I mostly forgot about that, it was great topic to revisit.

Your quote from Nancy made me think about a couple of the CDs from the Seth Audio Collection, where Seth flat out told people their entity names. No hesitation, or as Wallace (ala Wallace & Grommet) would say, no prevaricating around the bush.

It says Complied by David L Tate and then it gives the copyright circle "c" symbol. After this however, we get no copyright date what-so-ever. Is this a legitimate copyright?

That is an unusual way to represent a copyright. Normally it would contain the publication/print date. Maybe he just didn't know the proper way to represent a copyright, although all he would have had to do is replicate the copyright representation from any other book. As is the strange addition: "The right of David Tate to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988." I can't say I've ever seen that before.

[jbseth]

That is an unusual way to represent a copyright. Normally it would contain the publication/print date. Maybe he just didn't know the proper way to represent a copyright, although all he would have had to do is replicate the copyright representation from any other book. As is the strange addition: "The right of David Tate to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988." I can't say I've ever seen that before.

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Yeah, I agree. It is very strange. Interestingly enough, I also noticed that his books also contain the standard comment, "All Rights Reserved. ...", which seems hypocritical to me. It's OK if I copy Seth's material, but nobody better copy mine" 

It is my understanding, which very well could be wrong, is that a copyright must have a date. Part of the reason for this is in determining when the copyright expires. I saw something on the internet recently  that indicated that a copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author.

In thinking about why someone might opt not to put a copyright date on their book, it occurred to me that this might make it difficult for someone to demonstrate copyright violation; that is, that David's book was produced after Jane Robert's UK2 book. My hardbound copy of the UK2 has a copyright date of 1979 on it. However David Tate's problem with this is that Mary Innes didn't start channeling Elias until sometime in the mid 1990's. Thus, even though he doesn't have a copyright date on his book, he couldn't have produced the material in it before Mary started channeling Elias or before Jane Roberts produced UK2.

Very odd behavior indeed, which only seems to raise even more red flags for me about this whole thing. 

-jbseth

[LarryH]

My take on copyright law for written material is that it's probably alright to restate in one's own words what someone else has copyrighted. It is not alright to quote directly word-for-word from another source without attribution or quote marks as an attempt to pass off someone else's work as one's own. If a sentence is duplicated word-for-word, that may be coincidence. If a paragraph is duplicated, that likely violates a copyright. But re-stating ideas, but couched in awkward sentences with unnecessary qualifiers, does not strike me as a copyright violation. But generally, I agree that this Elias stuff is likely to have been inspired by Seth.

[jbseth]

But generally, I agree that this Elias stuff is likely to have been inspired by Seth.

Hi LarryH, Hi leidl, Hi All,

I think that this is probably true as well.


I took a look at the message that leidl posted, in reply 22 above, (thanks leidl).  

In this message, leidl said that in a google search on "Did Mary Ennis plagiarize Jane Roberts Seth", one of the first responses was a link to this very Speaking of Seth forum. Apparently, back on March 17, 2016, in this forum under the topic "Mary Innes – Elias material?", someone, going by "bookmark" in this forum had some interesting things to say about the Elias channelings (I don't recall this topic, but I'm not sure I knew about this forum yet, back then).

At that time, "bookmark" said that they were a long time Seth reader (more than a decade) and that they had more recently discovered the Elias channelings about 5 years ago.  Bookmark seemed to feel that the Elias channelings had been invaluable to them.

Bookmark said, "It was seth who let me remember/recognise the truth that we create our own reality - but it was the elias material that finally enabled me to reconcile this fact intellectually and modify my perception in a real nuts and bolts fashion. Seth provided the instinctive spark of recognition/emotional impetus and elias provided the blueprints (pun intended), so to speak. "

And so, for some people, there is some value to the Elias teachings.


That being said however, I'm still not comfortable with the fact that some copyright infringement may have also occurred.  Furthermore, just because something is beneficial, this doesn't necessarily mean that the way that it was created or developed was either ethical or legal.  Seth talks about fanatics and warns us against the "the end justifies the means" kind of thinking, in his book NOME.


-jbseth

[Sena]

At that time, "bookmark" said that they were a long time Seth reader (more than a decade) and that they had more recently discovered the Elias channelings about 5 years ago.  Bookmark seemed to feel that the Elias channelings had been invaluable to them.

jbseth, thanks for finding the posts by "bookmark".

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

You should actually thank leidl for that.

-jbseth

[Deb]

I went off Facebook for a while, then popped on this morning and saw this post from Christopher Galpin, the young man who made the Seth Search Engine. It was in response to someone asking his opinion on Bashar, and I thought his response was really well said.

I have an opinion but it is difficult to put into words. I will not answer for Bashar but all channeled works.

I could confidently educate on what I've learned from Seth and deliver, I think, significant value to an audience. I could do the same again but under the deception (fooling myself or others) that I'm channeling. Some value would still be delivered.

There is channeled material that delivers NOVEL and VERIFIABLE information, and there is channeled information which does not, ever.

Seth covered so much ground, that when you listen to others I recommend asking yourself specifically if the UNIQUE portion of their material is EVER testable.

I can very easily fake channeling if I stick either to what Seth has said, or anecdotes of distant galactic civilizations you can never verify.

Perhaps it isn't repeating Seth, but merely repeating the most important truths? Could be: both are valuable, and maybe the only goal. Being first (to his depth and degree) certainly gives Seth an advantage, because clues to the "authenticity" of other channels can only be found in the few bits which haven't already been given.

I too have a problem with plagiarism. It's one thing to quote someone, or attempt to explain your interpretation of the materials, but if a person is pretending to channel, there is a motive. Whether it's ego based, a need for attention, or a way to make money off of unsuspecting people, there is a moral issue for me.