How distorted is Seth/Jane? I believe not much.

Started by Mark M, March 20, 2022, 08:52:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mark M

inavalan wrote [In the topic: Another Mass Event: Putin vs The World]:

"I believe that that session's [TES 9 SESSION 498 AUGUST 25, 1969] distortions were caused by the strong emotional state of Jane and Rob when they started the session. Channeling is always strongly influenced by the channel's (Jane) emotional state, as well as by the audience's (Rob and guests) emotional state, because of the telepathic connection."

inavalan and anyone else is entitled to "second guess" Seth in this way. It is their inalienable right.

But I am willing to accept Seth's self-assessment that his/Jane's distortions are few beyond the innate distortion of putting the concepts into words:

"I have worked very hard to help Ruburt condition himself to provide for the material's integrity and cut down on distortions (Smile:) I would be appalled at going through that all over again."

—Seth, The Early Sessions, Vol 9, Session 454, December 7, 1968

"We must always work together, but you must never consider me as an infallible source. This material is more valid than any material possible on your plane, but it is nevertheless to some degree conditioned by the camouflage attributes of the plane."

—Seth, TES2 Session 47 April 24, 1964

"Our ideas are as close to fact as you can get..." --Seth, Sess 899

"You are getting the best information you could possibly get...." --Seth, Session 01/10/77, Personal/Deleted Sessions, Book 3

Seth appears to be aware of when Jane has distorted:

"('Did Jane distort the Kennedy material she received through you?')

"The Kennedy material was not distorted in these sessions, though some parts of the Oswald material had small unimportant distortions due to Ruburt's tendency to compare Oswald's mother with his own present mother. The distortion was slight."

—Seth, TES1 Session 33 March 9, 1964

I would think if a distortion was not slight, Seth would issue a "corrective."

inavalan wrote:

'"Thou shell not violate" ... I couldn't find (quickly) who makes the judgement, what is the correction, and who executes it.

'For example in that paragraph Seth/Jane talks about overpopulation being a violation, and that giving birth during overpopulation times is a violation.

'There is also some related talk about "grace", which makes me wonder ...

'I think these are some religious overtones...'

I'd say it's doubtful they are Christian ones:

"Ruburt [Jane] has often wondered at the poor quality of most intuitional material, particularly since it is supposed to be so important. The truth of course is not intrinsically in the nature of the material itself but in the very fact that it is almost exclusively translated in terms of Christian thought, however bizarre that interpretation might be. For that matter, such material often simply restates the entire concept of the Sinful Self in different form. Often that form is highly inflammatory. The main point is a good one to remember, however."

--Seth, deleted session of 4/23/81
Like Like x 1 View List

inavalan

Quote from: Mark M on March 20, 2022, 08:52:00 PMinavalan wrote [In the topic: Another Mass Event: Putin vs The World]:

"I believe that that session's [TES 9 SESSION 498 AUGUST 25, 1969] distortions were caused by the strong emotional state of Jane and Rob when they started the session. Channeling is always strongly influenced by the channel's (Jane) emotional state, as well as by the audience's (Rob and guests) emotional state, because of the telepathic connection."

inavalan and anyone else is entitled to "second guess" Seth in this way. It is their inalienable right.

But I am willing to accept Seth's self-assessment that his/Jane's distortions are few beyond the innate distortion of putting the concepts into words:
...

Sorry. This becomes tiring, and for me is a waste of time and energy. I really don't care what you are willing to accept.

Although I don't always write it explicitly, it should be inferred that everything I post is "my belief", "my opinion" on that subject, at that moment.

Sena

#2
Quote from: Mark M on March 20, 2022, 08:52:00 PMinavalan wrote [In the topic: Another Mass Event: Putin vs The World]:

"I believe that that session's [TES 9 SESSION 498 AUGUST 25, 1969] distortions were caused by the strong emotional state of Jane and Rob when they started the session. Channeling is always strongly influenced by the channel's (Jane) emotional state, as well as by the audience's (Rob and guests) emotional state, because of the telepathic connection."

The fact is there is no absolute truth. One of the biggest mistakes made by Christian theologians was to imagine a "God" who was omniscient. Seth never said that he himself was omniscient, and he did not say that All That Is is omniscient.

All conscious beings like humans, and entities like Seth ar engaged in a learning process which may be never ending.
Love it! Love it! x 1 View List

Mark M

Sena wrote:

"One of the biggest mistakes made by Christian theologians was to imagine a 'God' who was omniscient..."


"All That Is, as the source of all realities and experience, is so psychologically complex, so multidimensionally creative, that it constantly surprises itself."

--Seth, DEaVF2, Chapter 8: Session 916, May 14, 1980

inavalan wrote:

"...I really don't care what you are willing to accept."

That's fine with me.

He and others are free to really not care of the following opinions:

It always amuses me when people think they can out-Seth Seth in the sense of "second guessing" him.

But, again, that's just my opinion.

Further, I have never found any channeling I like as much as Seth despite very much wanting to since I've read all of published Seth.

I find most channeling not very good or, at best, having its mere moments.

No one that I have seen matches Seth's very high "batting average."

I corresponded with Tam Mossman intermittently over a number of years beginning in the mid-1980s and he once generously offered that I could ask his James anything I wanted to.

I can't now recall the question I asked, but I found the answer to be so embarrassingly bad that I never bothered to ask anything further.

But James on occasion had some really good moments such as in Tam's James book saying something like view your mistakes as merely a means to get data that you might not have by any other means.

Like Like x 3 View List

inavalan

Quote from: Mark M on March 21, 2022, 09:40:17 AM...

It always amuses me when people think they can out-Seth Seth in the sense of "second guessing" him.
...
Aren't you fortunate to be a "first guesser"? :))

You err in believing that everything you read in the Seth books is Seth's unadulterated message. You err in not understanding each distorting contribution between the Seth entity's intention and your understanding, even as a "first guesser".

You err in accepting, and operating with concepts that you don't understand, even if accepting they're beyond your "guess".

You err by "guessing", rationalizing, or "accepting", and not intuitively interpreting the message.

You err by believing that what you don't understand is "over-rationalization", and not your current limitation.

"Errare humanum est."

Surely, you repeatedly erred in your understanding of what I wrote. :))
Although I don't always write it explicitly, it should be inferred that everything I post is "my belief", "my opinion" on that subject, at that moment.

Mark M

Sometimes when I initially disagreed with Seth I later found I simply wasn't understanding him and that he was right.

But that's just me.
Like Like x 1 View List

inavalan

#6
Quote from: Mark M on March 21, 2022, 01:01:47 PMSometimes when I initially disagreed with Seth I later found I simply wasn't understanding him and that he was right.

But that's just me.
That is "normal". The Seth material is multi-layered symbolism, and provides knowledge and guidance to every reader according to their individual level of evolvement. You get something else than I get, as you-at-your-current-level of evolvement gets something else than you-at-another-level of evolvement. It isn't that now you understand it better. Your understanding becomes clearer. Although there are hierarchies of evolvement; the evolvement isn't linear, as different entities take different paths.

This process of evolvement, and of acquiring knowledge, is progressive, not cumulative. It is like seeing a picture (or loading an image on your computer screen) that becomes clearer and clearer, and not like seeing it unveiling from one corner, or one side. You see a fuzzy image, and you try to "guess" some of its areas, and as you evolve those areas become clearer.

EDIT: Re-reading your post, I realize I misunderstood it. You still look at the Seth material like at a dogma, and at Seth as infallible (a kind of goddish, as I understand you believe there is a God).

My post was more about understanding something, then realizing that you misunderstood, and understand it "better".

You probably wanted to slide me because I challenged the quality of that quote. That's okay. I still think that that was one of the more distorted (inconsistent) sessions.

It isn't about "disagreeing with Seth". It is about misinterpreting it, and about being trapped by distortions, your beliefs and approach.
Like Like x 1 View List
Although I don't always write it explicitly, it should be inferred that everything I post is "my belief", "my opinion" on that subject, at that moment.

Mark M

One of my big-fave Seth quotes:

Seth: "At a conscious level, of course, neither of you realized,
or wanted to realize, the kind of complete repeal and overhaul
that was implied by our sessions, and for some years you
managed to hold many official views of reality along with the
newer concepts, not ready to understand that an entire new
way of thinking was involved, a new relationship of the
individual with reality. So you tried out some new methods
piecemeal, here and there, with good-enough results.

"Of course, an entire reorientation (with emphasis) is instead
implied..."

The Magical Approach, AUGUST 18, 1980
Like Like x 1 View List

Sena

Quote from: Mark M on March 21, 2022, 09:40:17 AM"All That Is, as the source of all realities and experience, is so psychologically complex, so multidimensionally creative, that it constantly surprises itself."

--Seth, DEaVF2, Chapter 8: Session 916, May 14, 1980

Mark, that is a very interesting quote. If All That Is knew everything from the beginning, it would not have been able to surprise itself.
Like Like x 1 Love it! Love it! x 1 View List

strangerthings

Quote from: Sena on March 21, 2022, 09:34:03 PM
Quote from: Mark M on March 21, 2022, 09:40:17 AM"All That Is, as the source of all realities and experience, is so psychologically complex, so multidimensionally creative, that it constantly surprises itself."

--Seth, DEaVF2, Chapter 8: Session 916, May 14, 1980

Mark, that is a very interesting quote. If All That Is knew everything from the beginning, it would not have been able to surprise itself.


I love that referenced quote .

I can relate to it in the sense I too have surprised myself lol Working on something seemingly so complicated (for me hahaha) and once done being totally amazed!

And I am just little ole me! If All That Is can do it and we are portioned out magnificently and with parental properties, then woohoo!

"If it's possible in the world (multi too) then its possible for me!"
(It is an NLP thing but hey it is great to know and feel!

Like when people surprise us. Or even animals!
When Harvey happened people were thinking "looters" but the majority of people were helping each other!

I love that!