Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Has anybody on this forum read up on Seth (of Jane Roberts fame)?

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I was curious if anybody who regularly posts on this forum has ever heard about Seth -- the entity channeled by Jane Roberts. The real reason I'm asking is because these threads here (on Philosophy and Metaphysics) seem kind of gimmicky and smack of pop Metaphysics ideas that are usually tossed around.

Please let me know if you've heard of Seth, or someone or something that you feel is just as good or better.

I'm not trying to necessarily test out ATS or even this forum, necessarily. I'm trying to get a feel for what people in general know about heady metaphysical concepts. At least metaphysical concepts that are, for the most part, geared towards the new age style of thinking.

Let me know! Thanks.




posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I did when it first came out. I found it fascinating to imagine such an existence as that book describes. When more of them came out I skipped them as there were other fascinating things to explore.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I am answering this on my phone so I must keep it short, but yes I am well aware of the "Seth" books. They have made quite an impression on my life and how I deal with things. I feel fortunate that I was able to read them when I was young.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio
 


I read all of the Seth books, plus some of Jane Roberts solo books including 'Oversoul Seven' which I really enjoyed too.

My favorite is 'The Nature of Personal Reality'. I also loved 'The Nature of the Psyche parts 1 and 2.

I consider them to be my metaphysical primers and I am very happy that I was in some way guided to read them at a very young age.

I wonder what you think of them? I didn't feel that was clearly expressed in your original post.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   

antoinemarionette
I read all of the Seth books, plus some of Jane Roberts solo books including 'Oversoul Seven' which I really enjoyed too.

My favorite is 'The Nature of Personal Reality'. I also loved 'The Nature of the Psyche parts 1 and 2.

I consider them to be my metaphysical primers and I am very happy that I was in some way guided to read them at a very young age.

I wonder what you think of them? I didn't feel that was clearly expressed in your original post.


I really like your comment. I honestly can't tell if the others are trolling. What do I think about them: I thoroughly enjoy them. One of the saddest things about me becoming a Jehovah's Witness is that I prohibited myself from reading them. But I read them a lot now. I was relatively young when I came across them, too. In my early 20s. My first encounter was with Seth Speaks. I must have read that book in whole and in part at least 100 times. I eventually bought Unknown Reality Volume 2, but I don't like this one as much as his other books (like the ones you've mentioned). I may have to read it again.

I really do like the Seth books. I like them so much that it bothers me when I see cheesy threads about the third eye and I realize that not enough people are exposed to groundbreaking concepts like those of Seth.

However, I really am glad that I've found another like-minded person.
edit on bThu, 24 Oct 2013 03:13:40 -0500am296America/Chicago10amThursday24America/Chicago by brazenalderpadrescorpio because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio
 


Yes! And I too am glad!


The thing is, the vast majority of people with metaphysical interests greatly discredit channeling. Any book, text, or recording that is channeled they considered to be fake or fraudulent. It is tremendously narrow minded in my humble opinion, because they discredit it without listening to it or reading it. If they would actually explore it they would have second thoughts big time!

I learned so much from the Seth books, I feel they really gave me a tremendous head start in pursuing other texts, ideas and perspectives, for many of the themes presented were echoed in many, many other texts. For me that is veritable proof of its solid foundation.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   

antoinemarionette
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio
 


Yes! And I too am glad!


The thing is, the vast majority of people with metaphysical interests greatly discredit channeling. Any book, text, or recording that is channeled they considered to be fake or fraudulent. It is tremendously narrow minded in my humble opinion, because they discredit it without listening to it or reading it. If they would actually explore it they would have second thoughts big time!

I learned so much from the Seth books, I feel they really gave me a tremendous head start in pursuing other texts, ideas and perspectives, for many of the themes presented were echoed in many, many other texts. For me that is veritable proof of its solid foundation.



I really like the Seth books because I feel that so many other concepts pale in comparison. Just as an example, mindful meditation. Seth was light years beyond this (way before it was followed so heavily as it is now). He spoke extensively in The Nature of Personal Reality (?) about trusting your thoughts and feelings. He hit mindful meditation out of the park!

And that's just one small example.

I'm just curious; what other texts, ideas and perspectives have you seen Seth echoed in? You don't have to answer if you don't want to by the way.

I also think it's sad that they don't take Seth seriously because of being channelled, if that's the case. I think it's entirely possible that if you were to go 100 years into the future, Seth would still be relevant (he would perhaps still be more relevant).



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio
 


I could give tons of examples of things that Seth was one of the first to mention which is today simply taken for granted.

One example is the concept that physical reality is an illusion. We are convinced that we are surrounded by solid matter, when certain branches of science, like physicists, know this is most certainly not the case. Yet we do everything in our lives to make this illusion seem more real until we convince ourselves that we are surrounded by solid objects when in fact they are masses of mobile atoms and are in fact quite fluid.

Seth was talking about this in the 60s and 70s. I've heard Michio Kaku declaring the same thing like it's the latest news.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   

antoinemarionette
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio
 


I could give tons of examples of things that Seth was one of the first to mention which is today simply taken for granted.

One example is the concept that physical reality is an illusion. We are convinced that we are surrounded by solid matter, when certain branches of science, like physicists, know this is most certainly not the case. Yet we do everything in our lives to make this illusion seem more real until we convince ourselves that we are surrounded by solid objects when in fact they are masses of mobile atoms and are in fact quite fluid.

Seth was talking about this in the 60s and 70s. I've heard Michio Kaku declaring the same thing like it's the latest news.


And the idea of probable realities. The very possibilities inherent within quantum computers would not be possible unless there were a multiverse. I'm sure that you and I could go on forever.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio
 


Probable realities is another idea from Seth that I often think about when I am making decisions.

I can almost see the realities being born as one of me crosses the street, while the other sits at the cafe and another goes into the bookstore.

We could go on forever indeed! So happy to make your acquaintance here!



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio
 


I attended at least one of her lectures back, I think, in the 1980s in Austin. Things UFO and spiritual were very big in Austin in those days. I remain spiritual, and as my work on ATS can attest, very UFO-oriented. As I think about it, I believe I have some of her pre-book material yet in my files.

In channeling, the "wisdom" coming through the human gets mixed blended with that person's personality and outlook. She was a troubled person and it showed. I understood her mentor, Seth, as an alternative, male, personality to her inclinations to being a lesbian.

Was that a valid connection? These days, I do not know. Admittedly, I was more critical in those days of forthright gayness than I am today and that may have greatly effected my perspective of her and her work.

The "wisdom" that I mentioned earlier comes in many forms, all should be heeded. These days, anything remotely positive and not negative is welcomed. Channeling and heeding those messages are steps in the right direction for engaging a partial consciousness of what is... if somewhere short of the real dawning of full enlightenment.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I read 'Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul' a few years ago, after a friend (whose opinion I rate highly) recommended it to me. By that time, the idea of probable realities was not entirely new to me, but I like the way it is introduced and discussed in the book. Also, I enjoy Seth's voice, which comes across as fairly distinctive and the continuity of the material, considering the method by which it was acquired, fascinates me. I haven't read any of the other Seth books.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Aliensun
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio
 


I attended at least one of her lectures back, I think, in the 1980s in Austin. Things UFO and spiritual were very big in Austin in those days. I remain spiritual, and as my work on ATS can attest, very UFO-oriented. As I think about it, I believe I have some of her pre-book material yet in my files.

In channeling, the "wisdom" coming through the human gets mixed blended with that person's personality and outlook. She was a troubled person and it showed. I understood her mentor, Seth, as an alternative, male, personality to her inclinations to being a lesbian.

Was that a valid connection? These days, I do not know. Admittedly, I was more critical in those days of forthright gayness than I am today and that may have greatly effected my perspective of her and her work.

The "wisdom" that I mentioned earlier comes in many forms, all should be heeded. These days, anything remotely positive and not negative is welcomed. Channeling and heeding those messages are steps in the right direction for engaging a partial consciousness of what is... if somewhere short of the real dawning of full enlightenment.


I think that you might be confusing her with another channeler. For one Seth hardly ever spoke about UFO's, and second I don't think that Jane Roberts was a lesbian, necessarily. Seth mentioned that the natural human state was bisexuality in one of his books, but Roberts herself was married to Robert Butts. Besides, Jane Roberts was very sick in the early 80s and died in 1984. You might have the wrong person.
edit on bThu, 24 Oct 2013 11:51:57 -0500am296America/Chicago10amThursday24America/Chicago by brazenalderpadrescorpio because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I know you dont know me, but I can say that if I take the time to comment from my phone I am NOT Trolling. I was actually very excited too see someone mention Seth and actually mean Seth from Jane Roberts. That is why I took a moment to let you know someone else was out there.

I think the material Jane "channeled" from Seth was so in depth, it would be hard to believe she was trying to hoax, or, she was a Very astute woman. I think one had to be pretty literate to actually grasp a lot of the concepts presented.

Granted I didnt read all her books, but the couple I did manage to get my hands on impressed me very much.
I think for me, one of the things that stuck with me the most through the years was my grasp of "Time."I tend to see the "Big Picture" and how things will probably play out or at least the possibilities and not get so stuck " in a moment" as many do. I guess I sort of see The Ripple Effect if that makes sense.

While I will confess, much of what I had read escapes me now as it was many years ago, I am very certain that I do retain most of it in my subconscious mind.

I actually have a playlist of excerpts from Seth Speaks if anyone cares to listen to them.
You can PLAY THEM HERE

See, I am a fan.
Thank you for starting this thread. I am looking forward to see where this goes.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

onehuman
I know you dont know me, but I can say that if I take the time to comment from my phone I am NOT Trolling. I was actually very excited too see someone mention Seth and actually mean Seth from Jane Roberts. That is why I took a moment to let you know someone else was out there.

I think the material Jane "channeled" from Seth was so in depth, it would be hard to believe she was trying to hoax, or, she was a Very astute woman. I think one had to be pretty literate to actually grasp a lot of the concepts presented.

Granted I didnt read all her books, but the couple I did manage to get my hands on impressed me very much.
I think for me, one of the things that stuck with me the most through the years was my grasp of "Time."I tend to see the "Big Picture" and how things will probably play out or at least the possibilities and not get so stuck " in a moment" as many do. I guess I sort of see The Ripple Effect if that makes sense.

While I will confess, much of what I had read escapes me now as it was many years ago, I am very certain that I do retain most of it in my subconscious mind.

I actually have a playlist of excerpts from Seth Speaks if anyone cares to listen to them.
You can PLAY THEM HERE

See, I am a fan.
Thank you for starting this thread. I am looking forward to see where this goes.


I'm sorry. I hope I didn't offend you. I reviewed my comment to make sure what I said wasn't offensive -- sometimes I can't remember exactly what I write. I really do believe you are a fan.
And I know you got excited when someone mentioned Seth after knowing about him. I know because Seth tends to have that effect on people. And thanks for your link.

Edit: I also sometimes read the Seth books while being skeptical, and I honestly can't see how someone could be such a clever con-artist. Like Antoine and I were talking about before, the concepts presented were just so ahead of Roberts's time. I would think that a con like that would be highly unlikely. I personally think that it is nearly impossible, but that's just me.
edit on bThu, 24 Oct 2013 12:25:27 -0500pm296America/Chicago10pmThursday24America/Chicago by brazenalderpadrescorpio because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I read just about all the Seth books and was very much influenced by them. I was reading a lot of this kind of material back in the day and for me, Seth books were far apart from the other stuff because there was no lifestyle to adhere to, no mantras to utter, no sales pitch of any kind. I would have to say they were by far the best books in that genre I've ever read!!!



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

minkmouse
I read just about all the Seth books and was very much influenced by them. I was reading a lot of this kind of material back in the day and for me, Seth books were far apart from the other stuff because there was no lifestyle to adhere to, no mantras to utter, no sales pitch of any kind. I would have to say they were by far the best books in that genre I've ever read!!!


Thanks for your comment, and I wholeheartedly agree. I don't think that she was heavily marketing herself the way people usually do, especially nowadays. There was no Maharishi you had to practically worship. Jane Roberts and Seth were very genuine, and Seth was very straightforward and clear with his message. I've also read close to all of his books.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio
 


Pop-metaphysics. I like the word.

Most of what is shared in this forum is neither philosophy nor metaphysics. It is mostly religious topics concerning New Age spirituality, western-buddhism/hinduism, mysticism, and esotericism.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


Thanks for liking that word. I realize that about this forum. I just feel that Seth is so beyond all of that, and I wish more people were exposed to his philosophy. I think that it would clear up a great deal of confusion that's in this world. I believe that his concepts were so simple to grasp whereas religious concepts, and even new age concepts, are so murky. I believe that it's all based on outdated modes of thinking. And that's that, as mentioned, Seth was writing his books in the 60s and 70s. 30 plus years before now.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Although, I just want to add that Seth is within the New Age umbrella, as it were. That's to my last comment to Aphorism.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join