Doc-

Much the same thing happened to Helen Schucman who channeled Jesus in ACIM.  She also went through emotional suffering towards end of her life.

And btw, your point about PUL and Seth can also be said about ACIM.  Nowhere, when reading what Jesus allegedly says in the book, do I have a feeling that there is love behind any of it.  In fact, at times "Jesus" seems to actually be having a bad hair day.  He tends to get cajoling and even hectoring whereas in other parts he is extremely compassionate and kind.

Just doesn't compute.

R

Justin

I agree that the Seth material is of a different vibration than say Monroe and McKnight and such.  To me it has a more mysterious vibe, and requires the full use of both the intellect and the intuitions, for some of this material describing the greater nature of reality lies outside the realm of the human intellect.  I don't believe this to be a negative thing, however.  In any case, I will most definitely meditate on this.  I usually trust my intuitions in situations such as this.  I honestly feel I use an equal proportion of both my intellect and my intuitions when searching for knowledge.  I also believe I am good at recognizing my intuitions.  I believe what is happening here is that we simply have different intuitions regarding the Seth material.  At any rate, I think it is fine that we have different beliefs regarding this, for it seems that both of our current belief systems are working for us.  I know my is anyway, and I feel yours is as well.

Rondele/Doc/Recoverer

Quote:


This is rather obserd to think that more than 20 books of material were all just to trick us into believing one page.  The reasons I believe that most of his information is correct are (1) I have had many experiences both before and after reading his material that backs up many of his ideas.  (2) His concepts of the nature of reality are also shared by many explorers of consciousness of various backgrounds.  

I honestly feel like I am the most qualified one here to make judgements regarding Seth's work because 1. I have the most knowledge of his work and 2. I have never had to put up my defenses when reading something, including Seth's work, as many here have had to do when reading his Jesus segment, and therefore have no bias to cloud my judgement.  I read what he said about the crucifixion, thought, hmm thats interesting, and moved on.  I did not store it in my "this is true" box, but rather in my "interesting but I don't know.." box.  I did not store it in my "this is absolutely false because it does not align with my current belief system and generates fear within me!" box.  This is not a good box to keep around.  

And so I was able to get the most out of Seth's material and continued to see it with an open mind, even if I did not necessarily agree with every aspect of his work.  Even the most advanced beings are capable of making mistakes.  Seth admits himself that he does not know all the answers, but like us is constantly learning more about his reality.  However, it is not my intention to make excuses for Seth, and I must admit I do not know why Seth said this, just as I don't know if it is true or not.  But neither does anyone else, and so we arrive out our personal conclusions which result from our belief systems.  I am not the one putting down people's believe systems here.  

Seth speaks extensively about love being the driving force in the universe.  It is crazy to think that someone can read one chapter and believe they know the entire book, or read one book and believe they know the entire body of work.  

It is true that spiritual growth requires various ingredients, and Seth does not claim to be the only ingredient, or even the key ingredient.  Rather we both share the belief that they key ingredients are oneness with your self, oneness with nature and the universe, and oneness with god.  I strongly believe that if you had the knowledge of his work that I have most of your negative opinions regarding Seth would not exist.  

OOBD,

  A couple of times you have stated how alike Rosiland's guidance material is to Seth's.  I recently watched this video wherein it shares a voice recording of Seth talking philosophy. 

   Here is the link: http://vodpod.com/watch/1181974-seth-material-jane-roberts

  In this video Roberts/Seth talks about physical matter and how our consciousness became involved with same.   From what i get of it, "Seth" is putting the physical on a pedestal, and says that there is no error in our involvement with physicality.  That our flesh is a great spiritual reality.

  McKnight's guidance gives a rather different view.  They seem to outline that due to freewill, some Consciousnesses decided to split themselves, and to indulge in illusions and separation from Source and each other, and that our physical existence is the result of this (and why suffering/fear is such a strong tendency in the physical).   They seem to indicate that it wasn't a necessity or ultimately desirable ever, and as long as Souls via humanity, continue to be attached to illusion within, we will experience physicality as we now do. 
  They say that once Souls release these illusions and attachments within self, that they not experience the illusion of physicality and its seeming limitations anymore.   

  Rosie's guidance in that sense, is quite similar to Cayce's.  They both seem to say that our job as spiritual beings is to take the super slow vibratory level and illusionary nature of physicality which we temporally manifested, and raise it again to that of pure Light energy of which we originally experienced before we decided to indulge in illusion, false temporal ways and beliefs.  They both agree that the main way to do that is through living and being universal, pure love consciousness, realizing the essential Oneness of Creation.  They both highlight Yeshua as the highest and purest example of a human doing just that, and so totally coming to know while still connected to physical, how unlimited he really was.   So unlimited that neither space, nor time, nor death confined him whatsoever. 

  Again, Seth seems to put the physical on a pedestal and say that there was no error on our parts ever in being involved with same.  Furthermore, "he" emphatically states to NOT to listen to any source which tells us differently, that there was spiritual error (sin) on our parts in this whole thing.   That such sources are ignorant and living in the dark. 

  So yes, even with a little research, there are major differences and discrepancies found between these two sources beyond the Yeshua info.

  Also, it's interesting to note that I've heard a recording of Rosiland's channeling of her guidance (at TMI, part of the "Patrick event"), and also a rare recording snippet of Cayce's while he was in his deep trance state and giving a "reading".   Interestingly, both speak in a more flat and monotone type voice like we would expect from a truly nonphysical being who is not so emotionally centered and dramatic as many of us humans are. 

  On the other hand, this was the first time I listened to a actual recording of Roberts channeling Seth, and well I couldn't help but giggle a little because it sounds so blatantly like what one would expect of cheesy campy "channeling", something that like Hollywood might portray and any decent actor with an imagination and suggestible personality could easily slip into.   I could imitate both Roberts and "Seth".   And believe you me, i could ramble on for hours about philosophy no problem, but that is not an indication of my divine knowledge and great expandedness.   

  Seth doesn't sound all that nonphysical, with all that emotion and drama in his voice.   You would expect a highly spiritually mature nonphysical Being to talk much less emphatically and emotionally, because from my experiences of more developed nonphysicals, they often lack the strong emotional qualities that we humans are so well known for (especially noticeable in many E.T.'s).  Not that they don't have feelings, or don't feel, but they don't have exaggerated emotions and because of their deep calm and stillness they would come off as more "flat". 

  Just as we find with Rosiland's work and Cayce's.   Actually, i've read similar from some Regressionists/hypnotherapists whose clients went into a deep state, and their Greater Self, or an Ascended type being came through.   Similar emotional detachment in their voice, very "matter of fact".   Not a singing and loud "SORRRROOOOWW and DEGRAAADATION", in a silly half Jamaican and half English aristocratic accent. 

  With that said, Rosiland's guidance sometimes had a slight Asiatic accent, when "Ah So" was more primarily being focused through.

   You don't need deep intuition to see through Roberts and her so called channeling, just some common spiritual sense and holistic reasoning is enough.  Why is it that the only other "entities" that Roberts channeled were famous painters?   

  Why is it that in Monroe's first biography, it is discussed that Roberts and Monroe met up, but Monroe remains curiously silent about "Seth" and the whole thing, BUT relates later having an interesting run in with another well known channeler and more specifically her guide Ramtha?   

  Maybe "Seth" didn't exist except as eventually as an unconscious thoughtform of Roberts, who was working through various unconscious issues relating to the nature of physicality and our involvement with same?   Hence, a person with both Sun AND Moon in Taurus (one of the most innately material minded/oriented signs there are) would want to believe it is alright to be sensuous, physical, and materially oriented, but felt conflicted because many spiritual belief systems say to get beyond those attachments...   That there is a far greater "joy" (as Roberts Seth terms it), beyond anything the flesh could possibly offer. 

  For myself, i know this as reality and fact, and when a supposed channeled being tells me differently, and otherwise disagrees with certain key issues, well I wonder just how expanded such a source really is. 

Hi Dude,

First, don't get the impression that you are being ganged up on - you aren't.  As to your comment:

"honestly feel like I am the most qualified one here to make judgements regarding Seth's work because 1. I have the most knowledge of his work and 2. I have never had to put up my defenses when reading something, including Seth's work, as many here have had to do when reading his Jesus segment, and therefore have no bias to cloud my judgement."

This is a bit pompous (no offense, as there are many on this forum who are quite well read and have gone through the material, including myself.)  You didn't addresss my comments specifically (I was less focused on the Jesus/Yeshua issue), and more on the source.

Overall, I feel there is much truth in the extremely coherent Sethian/Roberts metaphysics.  I don't like the way the nature of reality is dictated through the channel as if the absolute truth is one sided.  If you are a true reader of Roberts, you can't help but notice that Seth makes opinionated statements, and discounts certain other opinions.  Of all the loving souls I have met on my journeys, I have not often found this form of lecturing to and self-assuredness about the way things are.  

Listen to Monroe, Moen, and other explorers.  Do they have the answers?  No, they report back their findings, but encourage you to explore.  Thus, what kind of being must dwell on the reality of the crucifixtion and discount it?  

One can not take Seth's comments about historical facts as being too serious.  Earthly incarnate entities tend to have the best recall about earthly events.  As Swedenborg and other explorers have found, our ability to quote chapter and verse about earthly matters does tend to suffer when we have no spiritual equivalent for what is found on earth (in spirit).  As an example, Seth at one point mentions that he Oscar Wilde was one of his incarnations.  Yet he provides no account of Wilde's life and, in fact none of his dictations have the phrasings or wit commonly seen in Wilde's writings.  Truth?  Deception?  Who knows?

I also stand by my comments about Roberts initial contact with Seth via Ouija board, and the many various sources which warn of the dangers associated with ouija board contact with negative entities.  Put together with Roberts early death and illness, and other factors, one can't help but wonder at the nature of the communication or the communicator.  

The metaphysics of Seth is truly coherent, impressive and similar to other modern spiritual thinking.  For those initially exploring spirituality, the ideas can open doors in the mind.  My main problem was with the nature of the communication, the elevation of the communicator to an "expert" authority on spirituality/reality, instead of the encouragement and pursuit of the exploration of others.  

In this game, those who know, who act lovingly do less dictating, and more to help others explore and become more loving.

Just my opinion.
Matthew

The early death alone is not related to any flaw in spirituality.  Many times "the good die young."  However, if you read about the angst and tribulation of Roberts' life, and how she physically and emotionally worsened as the channeling continued, one seems to conclude that despite the words dictated, this was not a positive experience/relationship for her.  There is a text, Speaking of Jane Roberts that goes into this in more detail.

To me, it is not surprising.  Unlike spiritual exploring where we try to reach out ourselves, channeling, invites another entity of almost any level (including lower levels) to enter us, to speak through us, without the channeler making spiritual contact or following a path toward love.  

M

Justin

I am convinced that Seth was a separate entity, if you are not that is fine.  I do not intend to debate this issue. 

I am curious, you said you believe I hold limiting beliefs regarding Seth.  Which beliefs do I hold that limit me?  Maybe you see something that I don't.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't see it.

I am surprised that you feel our physical existence is not so important.  You think Seth puts our physical existence on a pedestal... so where should it be?  Under the rug?  Those who do not put their physical existence on a pedestal are those who do not live life to the fullest.  I fully disagree with you on this one. 

So you believe we did not choose our physical existence per say, but rather we chose to believe we are separate from source and so our existence in the physical resulted from that...  That seems to go against what Monroe believed, which is strange because him and McKnight seemed to be on the same page about this stuff.  Monroe believed we chose this physical life for the unique experience of physicality. 

I think it is the other way around from what you beleive... I think we chose this physical existence not to separate ourselves from source, but to experience ourselves in a new context(among other goals).  I believe the separation resulted from false beliefs and spiritual corruption which has evolved on Earth.  Seth claims that the earliest humans were so in tune with their inner being and with nature that their consciousness actually had the flexibility to merge with the earth's different manifestations of consciousness.  These were humans not corrupted by false beliefs. 

Your way of thinking here would mean that Jesus did not choose to come here to guide humanity, but to indulge in the illusion of separation. 

We are just one type of consciousness here on earth.  Did all of the other consciousnesses on earth also choose to feel separation from source?  I'm willing to bet that they still experience that connection with source to some extent, and the reason is simply because they do not entertain false beliefs like we have learned to do which block us from that connection.  It just doesn't make much sense that we are here because we wanted to experience separation, but yet our goal is to shatter the illusion of separation.      

Btw, Seth also stresses the importance of letting go of false beliefs, breaking the illusion of separation from source, and living according to PUL.
 
Doc

Perhaps it is a coincidence that Jane died after twenty years of channeling Seth.  Maybe she would have died anyway.  Maybe Seth was a negative entity who decided that after 20 years of offering guidance and knowledge, it was time he killed her.  Maybe he unintentionally killed her by slowly draining her energy through the sessions.  I am not well read up on the circumstances of her death.. after I read The Way Towards Heath, which was dictated when she was in the hospital her final year, I will be more prepared to discuss this subject.

Sorry for coming off as pompous, but the fact is that most members here debating Seth with me have only read one or two of his books. 

This may be why you say Seth does not encourage his readers to pursue their own explorations, when in reality he clearly does, over and over again.  I have a stack of his books, I can find you some examples if you want.  It is true, Seth dictates the way he believes reality to be, but at the same time he stresses the important things that Monroe and others stress, exploring and finding your own answers and living according to love.

Rondele

I'd like to think the idea of Christianity isn't based on a supernatural event such as a resurrection, but instead based on the teachings of Jesus.  The purpose of Christianity isn't to make you believe a man god was killed and brought back to life, but to provide a foundation for living a PUL-centered life.  Even if the resurrection didn't happen, it doesn't change the importance and truth of Jesus' teachings- which are the crux of Christianity.  It is as natural to doubt the resurrection as it is natural to doubt the validity of the being Seth.

It seems to me that most everyone on this thread is applying one set of guidelines to Dude's reasoning and another to their own. If it's a scientific discussion then let's look at the Nativity and the Crucifiction in those terms too and channeling in general. We're all in a different place. I can't get home from looking at someone else's map from where they are. Some great points have been brought up here, but now it seems like the science is something I would want to hear from both sides if it's a science argument--not that I think it is necessarily. I will read Seth because of this discussion. I have read ACIM and I found it to be more palatable than much of the Bible and even the gnostic gospels: Meaning it makes more sense to me and I disagree with it not being from a place of love, however I don't conform to it on all levels. What happened to those people after they wrote it is irrelevant unless Jesus' "punishment" for his words was to be crucified. There's great wisdom on this board and you all are great, but I felt I had to chime in-- No offense meant to anyone.

Beau