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

reply to post by thebtheb


Definitely very true. I think that as you analyze both of the materials side by side, and not look at them superficially you see that they both tend to harmonize -- almost like two lego blocks that fit together and complement each other. I don't know, I just think that the key is that Ra is speaking from the mainly physical standpoint and that Seth is speaking from the mainly metaphysical. Or as Ra would say it, Ra is space/time whereas Seth is time/space.

reply to post by thebtheb


Thanks for jogging my memory, I find one slight drawback in using multiple sources is that I tend to forget which book I'm remembering ...

So in the case of thought projection, Seth agrees with The Only Planet, while they recognise Seth as a source of genuine information. (Also Helena Blavatsky, who I've yet to encounter).

Incidentally, they give a great deal of information about Atlantis, including the story of how some of the souls which had not got caught up in the desire for the physical, decided to reincarnate as dolphins from then on, to enjoy the physicality and beauty of the planet without the perils of human sexuality. They are a surviving repository of their civilisation's knowledge, which they preserve for the benefit of all.

Well Brazen, Riffrafter seems to have cleared up your query, I'm too lazy to have gone looking for his contribution, but he's thoughtfully taken pity on us both.
I can only absorb this kind of information at my own wobbly pace, or it fails to leave any impression -- I suppose there's an internal reaction which needs time to develop.
I'm thinking that the more angles we approach the metaphysical from, the better we are able to formulate a "three dimensional picture" so for me there's no discord on my bookshelf where Benjamin Hoff's excellent treatise on "The Te of Piglet" stands alongside Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics". And wasn't it Bhagwan who pointed out that Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass" was high grade western mysticism ?

I think the important thing is not where we look, but how.

mistersmith.

reply to post by mistersmith


I think that the thing is that sometimes distorted information gets leaked out by the channeller. And I feel that you then have the phenomenon where the transmission gets clogged, and distorted information is built upon distorted information. So where you think that the channeller is being consistent, it's actually that the channeller is consistently offering a certain series of distorted information. And since we don't have that metaphysical insight that the entities who are being channelled do, it is impossible to know what is accurate and what is not.

It also goes back to the reality that the entities in question are offering their view on things that may not be exactly holistic since they've invested so much energy into that one direction. Even Seth said that every being resides in his/her own universe.

reply to post by mistersmith


Just a quick note to let you know that I've downloaded "The Only Planet of Choice" and look forward to reading it. I'd never heard of it before...

Thanks for pointing it out. I might be back with some questions or thoughts once I've read it, or at least gotten part of the way through it.

reply to post by Riffrafter



Greetings to a fellow Artisan -
I'm delighted to hear that The Only Planet can be downloaded, and that you are giving it a try.
Even when approached as a work of pure fiction, it contains much useful wisdom. If viewed with an open mind, I think it provides a splendid framework for the exploration of our surroundings both physical and metaphysical.
Like Bashar and Seth, I find the entities of the Council of Nine to be very -- (we don't have a word in English) "sympatico", that lovely Spanish word which implies so much more than mere sympathy.

Having formed the impression that Earth was one of the lower rungs of our evolutionary ladder from this and other books, I was very pleased to hear Bashar assuring us of the opposite yesterday. Earth is apparently a tough school.
That would explain a lot.

From the point of view of the Council of Nine, Earth is the most diverse and beautiful planet they know of, and is the most physically dense environment where souls incarnate. They are very concerned for it's future.

I'll be interested to hear what you think.

Bhagwan tells a nice story about the search for truth ....
A climber falls over a cliff, and manages to grab a tiny bush growing in the vertical face, and he hangs there, the ground hundreds of feet below.
He looks up -
"God, if you are there, please save me, and I'll serve you for evermore."
A voice booms down -
"Have faith my son, and let go of the bush."






A pause, and then --



"IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE UP THERE ?"

mistersmith.

I was looking at the Michael website. I like that a lot too. Thanks for the heads up, Riffrafter. I like how, even though the books are not free, they have a lot of articles explaining the core concepts. I really like the Soul levels part of the website. It helped me figure out where I'm at. I would predict that most of the people on the Philosophy and Metaphysics forum are in the category of Old Souls, by default. They are more in touch with their spirituality.

reply to post by mistersmith


I was reviewing some of the information in this thread (It's a lot!). I thought it interesting what mistersmith said about Ra reminding him of a Dalek. First of all, I have to say that I had to google Dalek because Dr. Who is not really big here in the States. Sorry! But I thought that this comment was interesting for the reason that Ra has a very obvious connection to Egyptian mythology. I think that one could easily make the parallel that the channeller is invoking an Egyptian deity. The idea that a parallel is drawn towards a Dalek, which is famous for being impersonal, is interesting because I remember reading a book on magick that states that the invocation of an Egyptian deity (as opposed to a Greek deity) will draw forth a personality that is likely to be very mathematical in its objectivity. I thought that this statement might explain why Ra is so, shall we say, emotionless.

for all the channeling fans.

another good "source"

Story waters!!

reply to post by kauskau


Okay, that was bloody cool. I really enjoyed that video. I thought I'd just listen for a minute or two to see how it sounded, but I ended up playing the whole thing, couldn't turn it off. Glad to see this thread is still here! I never deleted it from my "my ATS" because it's got so many great links and conversations.

brazenalderpadrescorpio
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.

Hi! I found this forum by googling Seth Speaks and it led me to this thread. I am a newbie here, but it is good to find other people who know who Seth is

I heard of Seth through reading Abraham Hicks' "Ask and It is Given" where, in the beginning Esther mentions her and Jerry had been reading the Seth Material. Couple months later I was in a bookstore and Seth Speaks jumped out at me. Long story short, I took it home and started reading it. My daughter could channel, and told me that I could if I wanted to, but I am in my 50's, and I looked at her sideways. I mean, I would know by now if I was psychic....half way through that book, Seth started speaking....to me. And I have been on a fun, wild ride ever since. I have read most of the books, but not all of them. Some of them were about dreams and astral projecting and I just wasn't into it, but I devoured the rest of them non-stop, like I was on a quest...and along the way, Seth taught me how to connect to him in a more deliberate fashion and gave me some really beautiful channelings.

I have been channeling him now for over two years, and I would highly recommend anyone that wants to learn how to channel to try channeling Seth. He is an equal opportunity channel. I have learned also how to channel Abraham, and I liken it to, if you know how to get in the vibrational frequency, you can channel anyone you want to.

It is fun, it is exciting and as I go, I am learning more and more how reality works and how I create my own.

I recently published a small book on Kindle of some of the channelings Seth has given me on Joy (they seemed to all fit together). If anyone is interested in reading it, sometime in the near future I am going to be making it available to download for free on Amazon. If anyone is interested, just reply to this thread and I will be sure to let you know when that will be. If not, no biggie. I could talk about Seth all day, and all of the changes that have happened in my life, all the changes I have made in my life just from reading Seth's material.

Changing beliefs is not for sissies, I say, but oh it is so freeing

I think the biggest belief that changed me (and one I am still working on) is to not care what other people think about me. I found, once I started catching what I was thinking as he explains in his book, that most of my thoughts - underneath them - were concerns about how someone else would react to whatever it is I wanted to do. I was a worrywart, though, but it really surprised me how much of my life, my thoughts, underneath was a worry about what people would think. That was huge for me, and I am learning not to care, but it not an instant process, but I am a different person now because of it.

So thank you to Seth, and hello to some fellow Sethies!

reply to post by Nameless1


I'd be skeptical of you channelling Seth, since he clearly stated that he was only making himself available to Jane Roberts. The main thing that concerns me about that is that that would make Seth a liar, and I never took Seth as a liar. I think that there's a better than average chance that you are channeling another entity, and that for some reason your entity can't express this in such clear terms. But whatever thing you realize, I hope that what you realize on your journey helps you grow as a person. Good luck!

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


www.youtube.com...

Story waters channels jane roberts herself...here at 26 minutes beginning.


Just watch it with your heart open to determine if its real or not..Don´t use your mind. (30 minutes she comes through directly)

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


i read seth speaks. way back.

didn't believe a word of it.

reply to post by kauskau


I'm gonna have to watch it later. There's judgemental people walking around my house (long story). Bookmarked! Thanks, Kauskau.

kauskau
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio

 

www.youtube.com...

Story waters channels jane roberts herself...here at 26 minutes beginning.


Just watch it with your heart open to determine if its real or not..Don´t use your mind. (30 minutes she comes through directly)

edit on 14-4-2014 by kauskau because: (no reason given)

I'll not even think of watching it. Anyone using Jane Roberts for their personal gain in some sort of charlatan performance isn't worth the seconds it would take to turn this off. Sad.

reply to post by Aleister


At first glance it seems like he's just trying to sound like Jane Roberts as Seth (or Jane Roberts?). But I'll try to keep an open mind.

brazenalderpadrescorpio
reply to post by Aleister

 

At first glance it seems like he's just trying to sound like Jane Roberts as Seth (or Jane Roberts?). But I'll try to keep an open mind.

On this one my mind is closed and honoring the real Jane Roberts. Here she is, the one and only, with her husband and transcriber (and questioner) Rob:

tsingtao
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio

 

i read seth speaks. way back.

didn't believe a word of it.

Maybe read it again and look how far ahead of its time it was.

reply to post by Aleister


Yeah, I'm sort of debating on whether I should watch it. Seth did clearly say that he would only speak through Jane Roberts. I don't know.

brazenalderpadrescorpio
reply to post by Aleister

 

Yeah, I'm sort of debating on whether I should watch it. Seth did clearly say that he would only speak through Jane Roberts. I don't know.

Since this is your thread - and a very good one I may add - you may have to watch it for integrities sake, for at least five seconds. Of course he's not channeling Jane Roberts or Seth or whatever her higher consciousness/Seth called itself, and then the one above that (Was it Seth II? I can't remember the name). The stuff dreams are made of.