Welcome to the forum Freesoul!

I have not read any of the Seth material and can't comment regarding your question.

For myself when I read books, I try to take what is helpful to me and go from there.  We seem to always be looking for what we feel are trustworthy resources. However, the most reliable and trustworthy source you have is your self.

Again welcome!

Love and blessings,
Kathy

Hi Freesoul,

 I very much agree with Gerald, in that what you resonate too, is what you are going to believe, and is what you will be drawn to.

 I think its a very good idea to question these sources, and expect consistent and multi-faceted verifications over periods of time.  How do we grow without using the left brain, questioning side?  The first part i mentioned is primarily a "right brain" attribute.  And the right brain/feminine part of us has a lot to do with passive acceptance, which is very important, but so isn't the active, expanding, questioning left brain part.

 Gerald mentions Roberts experience with a psychologist or psycholanalyst, and that perhaps could be taken as a verification, but it certainly doesn't come close to a scientific testing by any means.

 Psychology is somewhat of a nebulous and vague "science" as it is, and much of it depends largely on the individual perceptions of the one doing the diagnosing, though there are systems involved.

 My more personal and subjective feeling on that matter is that Roberts was sincere, but i do not trust her source, though there are some great mind expanding concepts in there (i don't throw the baby out with the bathwater necessarily).

 I find it interesting that Gerald also mentions Cayce, and correctly states that this source of info had been through many testings and verifications in the almost 40 years of giving readings, so what i find interesting is that there are certain core or key concepts in the Cayce readings which very much do not jibe with some Seth's main teachings.

 I am not a Seth expect by any means, have only read one entire book and skimmed other parts of other books.  

 Cayce's Source's overall spiritual philosophy can be considered a blend of many Western mystery teachings with some core Eastern teachings--in other words, its quite Universal, but at the center of these concepts and teachings is the personality who realized the Christ within--Jesus.  The Readings go in great detail and in depth on the life, teachings, and other lives of this person....   And while it refutes some things in the N.T., it does say that many of the seeming "miraculous" claims for this teacher are quite literal (like the manner of his birth, various healings, bringing back the dead, etc.) and that Dr. J did indeed revivify his 3 day long dead body, which if the Shroud of Turin is any indication of, must have involved some major energy radiation (the Los Alamos Labortory report on the Shroud is quite intersting in this respect).

 This "ressurection" process is very core to the very Cayce Readings themselves, and is the eventual destiny of every Soul within the Earth.

The reason, and for this we must understand what physicality means to the Soul beyond the holographic type analogies...

 We seem to have created the conditions necessary for physicality, where we didn't ever need to experience this, and in bringing this into manifestation we have become "stuck" and it seems very hard to become "unstuck".  Its kind of like the whole retrieval concept that TMI and those connected to, talk so much about, except that this is much broader and expanded in scope.

 Physicality itself needs to be "retrieved" in a sense, and this is the whole meaning behind Dr. J's interesting experiment for our benefit.   That we need to "spiritualize" the body, and bring it back up to its original state of being...

But does that statement mean anything, it sounds mighty confusing, how can a "body" have an original spiritual state?

 Think of it in this way:  The body is a reflection of Soul force/energy.  What is Soul?  Individualized Spirit Consciousnesses moving within the Whole.

 If we always retain an individuality of sorts, then this energy has a symbolic or repesentational "image" associated with it...  This is what the body is and does mean, but we have immersed ourselves in the image or the projection and have forgetten that we are more the Light behind the projector, and in creating and losing ourselves in a dense version of the image, we must in a sense "sanctify" this dense version by raising its vibrations to that of pure Light again.  This is what the man and Teacher Jesus did.

 Anyways, how does Seth figure into all of this?  Again, remember i have no problem again Roberts, just her source.   Seth says that this man was just basically unusually psychic, and then manipulated the whole Christ scenario by having another person drugged to go up to the cross to die.   And many of these "miracles" are rather as superstition, or outright lying by others later on.

Now, basically Cayce said that this Disk and particularly this specific personality--Jesus, was the most intune and God Realized Teacher ever to visit and teach within the Earth, and can be thought of as the ultimate pattern for all.  Not that you have to be a "Christian" and all that stuff, cause i'm certainly not, i'm much too Universal to fit myself into one belief system.  I belive in and look at many beliefs and teachings.

But what a difference between Seth's teaching on this, and Cayce's Source!

 One basically states that there is no spiritual growth, and lends a very passive filter to existence, and another (Cayce) says no, you must be very active, use your freewill and grow towards a more Universal Love--hence the pattern of Jesus, and one who blazed the way for the 3 fold perfection of life--body, mind, and soul.

 The former is very dangerous in my book, but is so much more attractive to ego, cause ego doesn't want you to heal, to be whole, it likes its dense false image self, and it likes feeling separated from others.

 It is so much harder to follow the philosophy of the second source, and we humans are basically a lazy lot.  But in the end, what is more rewarding?  Yet our Souls must know the extreme importance of the latter, cause otherwise why do we come to the physical Earth where there is so much pain and challenge for us?

 So yeah, keep an open mind, but doesn't it make sense that if you are going to look at a psychic source, then why not look to those who have been consistently verified from many, many angles and for many years?

 No psychic source is a 100 percent accurate, if the channel itself is still a developing Entity..  Its just not possible because of various variables which will skew the info from its more Universal and objective truth.   As deep, verified, broad. and emcompassing as Cayce's info was, there were errors occasionally.  There's just too many disparate factors which can skew the info.

 Often when Cayce was in ill-health, his info would lack and he was constantly chided by his Source to take better care of his physical vehicle so that the info could come through more accurately and clearly.   Stubborn b*stard just didn't listen, and liked to listen to his stomach more  .

 Or the energy around him, or the person asking the questions had a responsibility in how well the readings functioned...(if it was more for a spiritual growth purpose, the info was often much more accurate and wide ranging for example)  There were a myriad of factors which all needed to correlate and balance with each other for that really high quality info to come through consistently.

 Being a channel is much, much, much complex than many seem to realize...  And Cayce could have been a better one if he had Loved more and had treated his body better...  The more you truly love others with PUL the clearer your energy becomes and the more you can be a clear conduit of that Universal Energy, or cohesive intelligence of the One field.

 So yeah, its being just practical and pragmatic to go with  sources which have the most verifications.

 Sure, we all will resonate with what we resonate with, and we all will believe in what we want to believe, and in the end there is only one path to happiness and Source--PUL.  

 The rest or inbetween, our specific belief systems aren't as important, unless they either hinder this, or facilate this.  I'm sure for some people, Seth's info helps them in this regard, and all the more power to them.

 But, these are not completely neutral tools either, each book, each teaching, etc. has an energy field around it, so it has its relative affect on us depending on how much we choose to "link up" with that particular energy field.

 My own personal experience is that there is darkness and Spirit rebellion, and a deceiving high seeming, but in actuality slow vibrating field associated with the Seth energy.

 I'm fairly sensitive to energy, and to the holistic meaning of energy fields.  I almost never pick up a book i won't really enjoy (whether fictional or spiritual), etc. because i listen to my inner signals.

 Before i knew anything about Seth, or ran into any people who were deeply immersed in this belief system (and many of them i have interacted with have been rather unloving overall it seems), i picked up a Jane Roberts book, and while i read some of it i though, "hmm this is interesting, yep understand this, understand that, ah huh, etc., etc."   And but i began to have an uneasy feeling, and for some reason i really just didn't vibe with it, and this was before i read anything which contradicted certain of my own personal beliefs, actually many of the more generic teachings in that book that i was reading, did intellectually vibe with my beliefs.

 I put the book down, but was curious about my reactions to it.  So i figured i would read some more later, and then i picked up on a part where Seth was going into a tirade about "Sethians" and how he rebelled and all those that rebell are Sethians, and reading this i felt a sickness and knew why i had been uneasy.   Seth is one that truly did rebell, he was with those who rebelled with that powerful force in Spirit, and again later as more individualized Entities.  

 Then later on i read Seth's info on Christ and his life, and then a light bulb went off in my head, "no wonder he is trying to discredit the most loyal and hard working Retreiver who has tirelessly worked for our upliftment in this and other systems."   Dr. J is the foremost Super Unified Field (Known, not Theory ) Professor who works along side other Unified Field Professors like Dr. Buddha, Dr. Krishan, and others, but who is the head organizer.

 These "Sethians" helped to foster the sense of separation in this system (very much involved in Atlantis), and have worked in destructive manners in other systems, always with the goal to keep Light from reaching its brother and sisters because they are so immersed in the dark, but do not realize that darkness is just a painful illusion. Separation in rebelling against the Creative Forces is their motto, cause they feel such a lack of connectedness within and try to spread their pain.  I believe that this spirit of rebellion, this collective combination of individualized dark (self) immersed spirits was responsible for the twisted fate of the Grays, and it seems they have tried the same here.

 I do not dislike Seth and those within the astral or other realms who are sick, but i feel they are best to be avoided as it makes it easier to keep the ego very much alive when immersing yourself within such energy fields, they muddle your perceptions with their mix of half truths within whole lies...

Its like a Cayce quote about truth, "half truths are much worse than whole lies for they deceiveth even the Soul."  

 Its like in real life, if someone wants to mislead you, and do it well, what do they do?  They give you some truth along with their lies, and mix em up, and even someone who is trained to see through peoples lies, can be deceived.   Like a cop who eventually develops a knowing when people are telling him the truth (as they believe it), but sometimes they come upon a truly devious person who is intuitive and crafty enough to mix a good amount of truth in there, and even the cop gets the wool pulled over his/her eyes.

 Either way, its best to have compassion for them, but also be mentally aware of them and realize without fear (but with Love) that there are forces which do try to mislead.

Justin:

Your post sounds interesting, but unfortunately, I have to take off for the 3 day weekend, and will read it more thoroughly when I come back.

I'll say this though. I've had feelings similar to the paragraph you posted below. While I found Seth interesting as I read him, I also got some uneasy feelings. I don't know if this was the result my own ideas.

When I read him I never was moved in a way that caused me to feel love for God. When I read somebody like Rosalind Mcknight on the other hand, I do feel love for God.

My feeling is that even though God could had done just about anything with his creative power, he has done something very definite with it. I believe that there is a plan that takes the happiness and spiritual fullfillment of all conscious beings into consideration.  I write this without a subservient attitude. If you tune in, you'll tune into the plan that God already has in place. What's better? To take part in a plan that considers the happiness of all beings, or a creative energy free for all (especially for yourself)?

I can't recall that Seth gave much thought to this plan. It seems that he was more into creating your own reality, rather than finding your way to God.

Also, I still don't get that whole faked crucifixion business. The spirits that Rosalind Mcknight and Robert Monroe communicated with in Cosmic Journeys, emphatically state that Jesus was crucified.

I feel more inclined to trust spirits who express love and appreciation for God, rather than a spirit whose words never once made me feel love for God.

Also, does Seth ever speak of things such as chakras, PUL, spirit guides, and higher self?

But I'm no expert, and maybe someday I'll find out differently. As long as I don't have to stop loving God first.  When I say God, obviously I don't mean an old man in the sky. Nothing so limiting.>



[quote author=PhoenixRa

i picked up a Jane Roberts book, and while i read some of it i though, "hmm this is interesting, yep understand this, understand that, ah huh, etc., etc."   And but i began to have an uneasy feeling, and for some reason i really just didn't vibe with it, and this was before i read anything which contradicted certain of my own personal beliefs, actually many of the more generic teachings in that book that i was reading, did intellectually vibe with my beliefs.

Freesoul,  

You raise an issue that has been the source of great controversy on this site.   Some, unlike myself, find much material in Seth with which they "resonate."  I'd put Seth in the same category as flat earthers who claim that the Apollo moon landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar,  Let me offer my critique of the Sethian claim you cite:

(1) [Seth:] “I was a pope in A.D. 300.  I was not a very good pope.  I had two illegitimate children [class laughter], a mistress that sneaked into my private study,...a housekeeper who was pregnant every year I had her and three daughters who joined a nunnery because I would not have them ("Seth Speaks," 350).”

These claims can be refuted on two grounds:
(a) If you browse the internet, you will find lists that trace Catholic popes back to Peter.   Catholic historians know very well that this is revisionist history.   The first Roman bishop to claim the honorary title “Pope” (Latin “papa”) was Leo the Great in 461 AD.  Prior to that, “papa” was a more generic title that might be applied to Catholic clerics in general.  Even Eusebius's list of Catholic bishops is anachronistic in the sense that it identifies bishops for a time when the church basically consisted of small house churches and the office of bishop was not yet developed and widely established.   So Seth’s claim to have been a pope around 300 AD is an absurd historical anachronism.

(b) There is no evidence for the existence of Roman "nunneries" in that era.   Here Seth is inventing scandal to discredit the Catholic church.  The "class laughter" should have been directly AT Seth’s transparent nonsense.  

(2) [Seth:] “I was originally called Protonius...The last name...is not my papal name, but my...common name: Meglemanius, the third.” Seth distinguishes between his prior papal name and his birth name.
But such a distinction does not yet exist in 300 AD.  

(3) The bishop of Rome in 300 AD was Marcellinus. There never was a pope or bishop named Meglamanius Protonius.  

(4) [Seth:] “I sent armies to the north also {351].”  This claim makes about as much sense as a small country Baptist church of 50 members claiming to have sent an army to Iraq.    Marcellinus was the Roman bishop during  the deadly persecution of Christians by Emperor Diocletian.  In the pre-Constantine era, the Catholic church was small and politically impotent.  It took several more centuries before the Vatican became powerful enough to have and send armies.  

(5)[Seth:]  As pope, “I wrote two church laws.”  The history of canon law uncovers no evidence that the Roman bishop in this era wrote two church laws.  

In my next post, I will offer you other ways to assess the historical claims of channeled materials.

Don

Freesoul,

Here is another historical critique of Sethian materials, together with other channeled materials.  As a Christian (albeit a most unconventional one), I'm also disturbed by an agenda that emerges in much of modern channeling: the claim that Jesus' death on a cross is a lying travesty.  When stripped of all the theological jargon, Jesus' death basically means that we should come to God on the basis of gratitude for "His" acceptance rather than from a sense of burden that we must "earn" His favor.   But what truly disturbs me is is the venemous nature of the rejection of this belief in modern channeling.  I will offer 7 channeled examples and provide commentary where it is needed.

(1) The Koran's portait of Jesus is allegedly the product of dictation from Allah, but it is in fact largely the product of allusions drawn from several apocryphal infancy Gospels written between the late 2nd and 5th centuries.  These Gospels are obviously legendary in character and far too late to contain any historically valuable material.  The Koran, Elias, and Seth even deny that Jesus died by crucifixion.

(2) "I [Allah] will cause you [Jesus] to die a natural death. . . They did not slay Him, nor did they compass his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified to death
(Koran 3:55f.; 1;158)."

(3) In Elias Session 282 Vivien observes, "I understand that he [Jesus] did not die in the crucifixion, but did he go to India after that?"  In reply, Elias claims that Jesus moved to Macedonia and died there at age 51, apparently of natural causes.  On this point, Elias agrees with the Koran.

(4) In Seth's claims to prior incarnations, he can be proven wrong whereever he can be checked.  Seth echoes the claims of the Koran and Elias that Jesus never died by crucifixion.  But Seth's account is closer to that of 2nd century Gnostic tradition:

"He [Jesus] had no intention of dying in this manner...There was a conspiracy in which Judas played a role. . .The man chosen was drugged--hence the necessity of helping him carry the cross (see Luke 23)--and he was told that he was the Christ.  his physical presence was no longer necessary, and was even an embarrassment under the circumstances.  He simply willed himself out of it ("Seth Speaks"  266, 368)."  

In the Gospels, of course, crucifixion is a self-conscious part of Jesus' mission.  Jesus is subject to savage torture that weakens Him to the point where he needs Simon of Cyrene's help in carrying His cross (Mark 15).  Seth's account is merely an implausible variation of a universally discredited 2nd century Gnostic legend.  Irenaeus express the legend thus in Against Heresies 1.24.4:  

"Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry His cross for Him.   and this Simon was transformed through ignorance and error.  Jesus, however, took the form of Simon, and stood by laughing at them since He could not be held and was invisible to all."

This absurd legend was created to allow Gnostics to reconcile their Middle  Platonic belief that God transcended human emotions and could not suffer.  On this view, Jesus, a divine being, could not have been crucified.  

Our earliest Gospel, Mark, identifies "Alexander and Rufus" as Simon's two sons because these men were prominent figures in the early church and could verify Mark's account.  In fact, one of these sons, Rufus, shows up in Rome and is celebrated by Paul (Romans 15:13).  Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome where he could verify his account by talking to this son of Simon of Cyrene.  Paul even says that Rufus's mother, Simon's wife, had been like a mother to him as well.

(5) The first theme that pervades the channeling sources in question can be summed up thus: There is no good and evil polarity.  4 quotes will suffice:  

(a) "Sin does not exist (ACIM 3:81)."
(b) "Ultimately, there is no difference between right and wrong. . .There is no such thing as evil (Ramtha--quoted from Mahr's book, pp. 60, 241)."
(c) "Engage widening your belief systems; for there is no right and wrong, and there is no good and evil (Elias, Session 94)."
(d) "All existence was blessed and...evil did not exist in it. . .The devil idea is merely the mass projection of certain fears. . .Good and evil effects are basically illusions.  In your terms, all acts, regardless of their seeming nature, are part of the greater good (from "Seth Speaks"  13, 139, 342).

(6) It is inconceivable that jesus would ridicule His earthly teaching about divine forgiveness.   Yet the Jesus channeled in ACIM does just that: e. g.

"{Divine] forgiveness is an illusion (ACIM 3:79),"
("Do not make the pathetic error of clinging to the old rugged cross. . .This is not the Gospel...I intended to offer you (ACIM 1:47)."

Contrast this with just 2 of the many examples of Jesus' mission statements in our Gospels:

"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many
(Mark 10:45)."  

"Then he [Jesus] took a loaf of bread...He broke it and gave it to them, saying,`This is my body, which is given for you.  Do this in remembrance of me.'  And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, `This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood (Luke 22:20).'"

(7) The Jesus of ACIM not only contradicts the Jesus of history; he also once confuses what Paul did with what the earthly Jesus did! Notice too how the Jesus of ACIM contradicts Jesus' claims to a unique messianic identity:

"Christ waits for your acceptance of Him AS YOURSELF (ACIM 1:187)."  "Is [Jesus] the Christ?  O yes, ALONG WITH YOU (1:83)."

Then compare this with the Ramtha entity's claims:
"The Christian God is "an idiotic deity. . .You are God...We are equal with God and Christ."

Don

  Hi all,

I basically agree with Matthew's post...  And to play the devil advocate, while i don't "believe" in Seth as a true source of real spiritual info, at the same time, there are some interesting and good concepts in there.

  Also keep in mind, that all psychics can, do, and have made mistakes.  Even the best of them.

  I was trying to point out why, and just theoretically say if Seth is wrong about the Pope issue (which seems to be the case), does this necessarily invalidate Seth as a worthwhile channel of info?

  No, i don't think you can take it on one specific example.  Now if there are more things which seem off, then yes, chances are the psychic is not really picking up outside info, but just recycling subconscious ideas and unconscious belief systems.

  Its consistentcy and rigour of tests which should be considered in trying to figure out whether a particular psychic source should be considered as truthful.

  Say i successfully remote view 7 objects, but miss 3, does that mean i have no ability?   Not necessarily.

  I think for a source of info to be 100 percent accurate, or close too, they would have to be enlightened, and even then if they were asked to list a bunch of future predictions, they might not get them all right because of certain unpredictable variables.

  Ever hear the saying, "its not easy being cheesy."...lol well its not easy being a consistently accurate psychic

  Recoverer made mention of Cosmic Journeys by Rosalind Mcknight, which is a book documenting the early years in the Monroe Institute and the early explorers with their various OBE experiences or other phenomena.

  At one point, Rosie's guides get firm with Bob and Rosie and say that if you want to continue in this work, you're going to have to get some discipline in your eating habits and lifestyles.

  Can't imagine Bob liked that one too much!  As he seemed to have been turned off by that kind of thing earlier in his life.

  Anyways, even the foods we eat have an effect on our psychic abilities because the necessity of having a balanced system between the physical, mental, and more pure energy states.

  I know this cause i keep getting dream guidance to eat a particular meal which seems to have a stimulating affect on the Pineal gland, as well as greatly helping eliminations.

Quote:




I ve read the nature of personal reality and parts of the  Seth Material, and parts of those books deal with the testing of seth. Many times throughout this event it seemed there was a testing of seth. telepathically and clairvoyantly and tests to that extent of proving whether, basically, seth was some invented subconscious portion of jane roberts mind, or not.

  That seems to be a hang up about seth, that a person may just be fantasizing or making up beliefs and alter egos or what have you.  Even a hang up of jane roberts was that.