Conversation Board - Subtle Travel

Morrighan Super Member Offline Multidimensional Navigator Posts: 505 Isle of Everywhere Gender:	Re: Subtle Travel Reply #75 - Apr 28^th, 2018 at 5:59pm In reading today's link I am present to the same feeling as with the Seth material. So in describing the experience does one become the experience or the descriptor? My seat-of-the-pants-guess is Both / And. It's fun to jump out and spin it
Back to top	If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition. It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law IP Logged

Subtle Traveler

Full Member

Offline

Member

Posts: 134
US
Gender: male

Re: Subtle Travel
Reply #76 - Apr 30^th, 2018 at 4:08pm

Morrighan wrote on Apr 28^th, 2018 at 5:59pm:

In reading today's link I am present to the same feeling as with the Seth material. So in describing the experience does one become the experience or the descriptor? My seat-of-the-pants-guess is Both / And. It's fun to jump out and spin it

fwiw, DeMarco considers Seth the "gold standard" as far as channeled material. He has been chatting with his own guidance (and sharing that) now for 25 years. His guides talked about this exact topic … “both / and” … this weekend in 3 posts culminating today.

As far as "becoming the experience" (your quote above), over the last week I have been reminded of a quote attributed to a non-physical being who presented themselves to myself and someone else in physical reality, when we were teens. The quote still resonates with me, and I often go back to it when I notice that I am ‘overly struggling’ with my own perception of separation from both my non-physical counterparts and what Vicky and I have called ‘Spirit’. To hold forth here a bit, we clearly are not separated from either of these parts of us. Our perceived individuality is simply one of multiple perceptions we have access to, but is more strongly reinforced (than other perceptions) by our physical apparatus. As some context to the quote below, the non-physical being was talking about their physical life here on Earth and their eventual transition beyond the physical body.

“God is a mental construct that is too limiting. The fundamental question is this—do you worship some power external to yourself or do you take full embodiment of it?”

I have not used the word “God” for myself in decades now because of the baggage that often comes with that. However, this quote provided me a way to point to that in a newer way and focus upon the important thing (e.g., “become the experience”) without continuing to question myself or my apparent separation.

Back to top

IP Logged

Morrighan

Super Member

Offline

Multidimensional Navigator

Posts: 505
Isle of Everywhere
Gender: female

Re: Subtle Travel
Reply #77 - Apr 30^th, 2018 at 6:06pm

Oh yes "God" and all iterations of same carry baggage. Which is why as a once-programmer* I use $deity. In computing language of olde, the $ indicates deity is a string variable. In plain English, that means it will contain any input I designate to calculate subsequent processes. The usage is humorous.

Seth and Jane Roberts went off the radar so long ago! She was from Elmira, NY, a backwater town if there ever was that got totally swamped in the flood of 72.

But yes, the linked passage reminded me of Seth.

* "programmed" = wrote the code that produces type on the lowest level. The stuff you can't see that goes on when you type and want something to happen. Didn't know there are type gnomes, didja? I don't do that any more Lips Sealed

Back to top

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over — Fudd's First Law of Opposition.
It goes in — it must come out. — Teslacles Deviant to Fudd's First Law

IP Logged

Recoverer 2

Super Member

Offline

ALK Member

Posts: 550
South San Francisco
Gender: male

Re: Subtle Travel
Reply #78 - May 1^st, 2018 at 1:11pm

I don't consider Seth to be the gold standard.

Jane Roberts tried to make it as a science fiction writer and failed.

She tried writing about ESP and failed.

Then she supposedly got into channeling Seth.

I once read an article where a man who used to work for Jane Robert's publisher said that people at that publishing company knew that she was a fraud. He wrote that her husband would speak to people who attended her "channelings" before they supposedly took place, tell her what he found out, and she would use that information to mislead the people who attended her meetings.

I read an article where it stated that she admitted on her death bed that she faked the channelings.

She also supposedly channeled Rembrandt and William James. She wrote the Oversoul Seven trilogy book without channeling, this shows that she can come up with material without channeling. Not that a lot of her material was original.

Recently I had a detailed dream that made the point that she was a fraud. Perhaps so I might react to the belief in her as exhibited by some at this forum.

The Seth books might say some things that are correct, but what about that parallel self business? If I remember correctly, during a "channeling" session, Seth spoke about when Jane and her husband saw their parallel selves at a bar (or restaurant). Has anyone done the same? Does anybody know anyone who has met parallel selves? (how parallel selves would make it from one universe to another is another question) If it was a matter of Jane being fooled by Seth, then how come she and her husband didn't have a problem with the parallel self meeting Seth discussed?

I watched a youtube video where Jane was supposedly channeling Seth, and then right in the middle of the channeling, for a brief moment she spoke in her regular voice and said "we'll take a break in a moment." How did she shift from one speaker to the other so quickly?

Gold standard?

If anybody is interested, I say more below.

http://nondualityisdualistic.com/a-night-in-heaven/chapter-13/

Back to top

IP Logged

Subtle Traveler

Full Member

Offline

Member

Posts: 134
US
Gender: male

Re: Subtle Travel
Reply #79 - May 1^st, 2018 at 1:59pm

Morrighan wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 6:06pm:

Oh yes "God" and all iterations of same carry baggage. Which is why as a once-programmer* I use $deity. In computing language of olde, the $ indicates deity is a string variable. In plain English, that means it will contain any input I designate to calculate subsequent processes. The usage is humorous.

Seth and Jane Roberts went off the radar so long ago! She was from Elmira, NY, a backwater town if there ever was that got totally swamped in the flood of 72.

But yes, the linked passage reminded me of Seth.

Morrighan ...

Yeah, people are going to have different experiences (and end up with different programming).

The word "deity" does not resonate with me individually. I currently keep things fairly general by using pointers such as "being" or "spirit" or "creator". These words carry more meaning for me. And, if I know the name of a being after meeting them, I will use that. However, most of the beings worthy of my reverence generally remain nameless (e.g., naming is mostly a 3D convention).

There are certainly beings of Spirit and Creation worthy of my reverence ... but not my worship. Worship, from my own experience and understanding, leads to idolatry. And, "deity" reminds me a bit of that kind of vibration (e.g., worship).

I like Seth. I am not a follower, but he has been helpful to me. For example, I requested his "Gate of Horn dream" a couple of years ago (after learning about it) and it changed things for me (my perspective). It provided a very clarifying experience.

I can also understand why some people project Jane's and Rob's human mistakes onto Seth, when they talk about the Seth material. To their human credit though ... Rob was very supportive of the work up until his last moments as human. The Seth material has remained available because of him. And Jane, she was a pioneer and explorer. As 3D humans, they did not always listen to Seth (e.g., like moving the frig out of the bathroom) ... but they did serve as publishers for Seth (e.g., and it is my understanding that is what he wanted ... publishers ... and this tidbit came from DeMarco's TGU many years ago in "The Sphere & The Hologram"). Abraham (Hicks) also talks a lot about Seth, as Seth is now part of Abraham (according to Abraham).

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 1^st, 2018 at 4:14pm by Subtle Traveler »

IP Logged

Recoverer 2

Super Member

Offline

ALK Member

Posts: 550
South San Francisco
Gender: male

Re: Subtle Travel
Reply #80 - May 1^st, 2018 at 2:06pm

Subtle traveler, regarding people projecting Jane and Rob's human mistakes on to Seth, do you know if it is that simple? When you make such a statement, it gives me the impression that you aren't willing to question Seth's validity to a serious extent. That is so convenient. Anytime a channeled being says something that seems wrong, just blame it on the channeler.

I just edited my above post. Consider the parallel self part.

Subtle Traveler wrote on May 1^st, 2018 at 1:59pm:

Morrighan wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 6:06pm:

Oh yes "God" and all iterations of same carry baggage. Which is why as a once-programmer* I use $deity. In computing language of olde, the $ indicates deity is a string variable. In plain English, that means it will contain any input I designate to calculate subsequent processes. The usage is humorous.

Seth and Jane Roberts went off the radar so long ago! She was from Elmira, NY, a backwater town if there ever was that got totally swamped in the flood of 72.

But yes, the linked passage reminded me of Seth.

The word "deity" does not resonate with me individually. I currently keep things fairly general by using the pointers "being" or "spirit" or "creator". And, there are certainly beings of Spirit and Creation worthy of my reverence (like my own Creator) ... but not my worship. Worship, from my own experience and understanding, leads to idolatry. Deity reminds me of a vibration of worship ... a common stumbling block for 3D humans.

I like Seth. He has been helpful to me. I requested his "Gate of Horn dream" a couple of years ago (after learning about it) and it changed my perspective. It was a very clarifying experience.

I can also understand why some people project Jane's and Rob's human mistakes onto Seth, when they talk about the Seth material. To their human credit though ... Rob was very supportive of the work up until his last moments as human. The Seth material has remained available because of him. And Jane, she was a pioneer and explorer. As 3D humans, they did not always listen to Seth (e.g., like moving the frig out of the bathroom) ... but they did serve as publishers for Seth (e.g., and it is my understanding that is what he wanted ... publishers).

Back to top

IP Logged

Recoverer 2 Super Member Offline ALK Member Posts: 550 South San Francisco Gender:	Re: Subtle Travel Reply #81 - May 1^st, 2018 at 2:29pm I believe that Michael Prescott made some good points of something Seth supposedly said. Below is a link. http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/10/my-problem-wit...
Back to top	IP Logged

Recoverer 2 Super Member Offline ALK Member Posts: 550 South San Francisco Gender:	Re: Subtle Travel Reply #82 - May 1^st, 2018 at 8:09pm I'd like to add that I have no problem using the name "God." Perhaps if more people used it in accurate way, false concepts about God would be more likely to go away.
Back to top	IP Logged

Subtle Traveler

Full Member

Offline

Member

Posts: 134
US
Gender: male

Re: Subtle Travel
Reply #83 - May 1^st, 2018 at 10:50pm

Recoverer 2 wrote on May 1^st, 2018 at 1:11pm:

I don't consider Seth to be the gold standard.

Jane Roberts tried to make it as a science fiction writer and failed.

She tried writing about ESP and failed.

Then she supposedly got into channeling Seth.

I once read an article where a man who used to work for Jane Robert's publisher said that people at that publishing company knew that she was a fraud. He wrote that her husband would speak to people who attended her "channelings" before they supposedly took place, tell her what he found out, and she would use that information to mislead the people who attended her meetings.

I read an article where it stated that she admitted on her death bed that she faked the channelings.

She also supposedly channeled Rembrandt and William James. She wrote the Oversoul Seven trilogy book without channeling, this shows that she can come up with material without channeling. Not that a lot of her material was original.

Recently I had a detailed dream that made the point that she was a fraud. Perhaps so I might react to the belief in her as exhibited by some at this forum.

The Seth books might say some things that are correct, but what about that parallel self business? If I remember correctly, during a "channeling" session, Seth spoke about when Jane and her husband saw their parallel selves at a bar (or restaurant). Has anyone done the same? Does anybody know anyone who has met parallel selves? (how parallel selves would make it from one universe to another is another question) If it was a matter of Jane being fooled by Seth, then how come she and her husband didn't have a problem with the parallel self meeting Seth discussed?

I watched a youtube video where Jane was supposedly channeling Seth, and then right in the middle of the channeling, for a brief moment she spoke in her regular voice and said "we'll take a break in a moment." How did she shift from one speaker to the other so quickly?

Gold standard?

If anybody is interested, I say more below.

http://nondualityisdualistic.com/a-night-in-heaven/chapter-13/

Albert

I never claimed that "Seth is the gold standard". I was quoting what Frank DeMarco stated about Seth for Morrighan, as she shared her own experience of how she connected with "Frank DeMarco's material". The quotation was directed to Morrighan. So, if you have an issue with DeMarco’s opinion of Seth … THEN go complain to him, OK?

I have never made this thread about Seth. You are "wedging in" your own opinions about the Seth material and now distracting from the primary conversation here. I was trying to have a conversation with Morrighan about her experiences with Frank DeMarco’s material. Do you see how you are now disrupting the thread and taking things way off the established topic?

You have already posted three times about Seth here today, when that was not the topic. This is disconcerting, because I have been respectful of you. And, I have been posting my experiences on this thread now for months with little interaction from you for weeks now, but today you show up and suddenly pick out a tiny detail in my conversation with Morrighan (e.g., Seth). Then, you wedge yourself into the thread by presenting a long discourse about everything wrong with Jane and Rob with many links and about others who are anti Jane and Rob. We were not discussing Jane and Rob here.

Do you see how you came into this conversation sideways and off-topic? And by persisting in that effort, you are starting to stink up the thread here. Please know that (in saying this) I am NOT saying that you can’t have your opinions about Seth.

I will now take a moment to answer your presented question to me. As far as my own interactions with the Seth’s teaching, it has worked for me the few times that I have worked with it. I am NOT a follower of Seth, and I have not read any Seth books. For me, Seth is an older message and I prefer newer teachings, so the Seth materials are not a priority for me at this time. However, when I have followed suggestions by Seth in the past (while ignoring whatever Rob and Jane were doing at the time), I have found the Seth material very helpful. This is why I made the general statement that people "project their opinions of Jane and Rob onto the Seth material". When I take Jane and Rob out of it, what Seth is saying has worked for me.

Finally, I am speaking up here directly to you (and at length), because I take responsibility for what happens in this thread. I do NOT want you “wedging in” your past arguments with Morrighan onto my thread. Understand? You need to show enough respect to let Morrighan and I have our conversation ... whether or not you agree with its basis or detail.

So, here’s the bottom line. If you are going post further about Seth, take it somewhere else (e.g., not on this thread). And, if you want to stay here on this thread (which is fine), then FIRST catch up by reading some of the Frank DeMarco links that I have shared over the last two weeks and you may then join the conversation. Please stay on the general topic, stay current, and do not “snipe at” small details and then go into a long diatribes or discourses about that. Keep your comments on topic and weigh the length of your comments to what is actually being discussed.

Finally, the next time something like this happens ... I will simply and quietly report the comment for moderation. You have been fairly and firmly warned.

Back to top

IP Logged

Subtle Traveler

Full Member

Offline

Member

Posts: 134
US
Gender: male

Re: Subtle Travel
Reply #84 - May 2^nd, 2018 at 11:36am

This morning ... Frank DeMarco shared an experience that he had at a Bruce Moen workshop sponsored by his publishing company, Hampton Roads. I thought that I would share it here.

http://ofmyownknowledge.com/2018/05/02/tgu-invisible-connections/

DeMarco is nudged by TGU to share his experience with Bruce Moen at the beginning.

For those who do not know, DeMarco was Moen's publisher. They initially met at the Monroe Institute in the 1990's, and when Bruce's first book was ready, DeMarco published it.

Something that I have consistently gleaned from DeMarco's work is that we are complex beings (not linear ones). And today, TGU expands upon the inter-connectedness of the All-D (and how it is inter-connected by spirit). Note how TGU reminds DeMarco of how we exist in all dimensions (e.g., their selected pointer).

Back to top

IP Logged

Vicky

YaBB Administrator

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2170
Colorado
Gender: female

Re: Subtle Travel
Reply #85 - May 2^nd, 2018 at 1:00pm

Subtle Traveler,

Thanks for pointing me toward Frank's blog entries. I haven't read his stuff before, (even though I do have a couple of his books) but have only heard of what he writes through friends, but I'm seeing how much I understand and relate to what he writes about because it's right in line with how I think about our reality and what I know and believe from my own experiences.

Can you explain a little about what the All-D concept? It means the coexistance of everything in and across all dimensions at the same time, as opposed to the concept of "here now, there later" kind of thing right?

Back to top

Author of Persephone's Journey (Amazon.com)

http://www.vickyshort.blogspot.com/

IP Logged

Subtle Traveler

Full Member

Offline

Member

Posts: 134
US
Gender: male

Re: Subtle Travel
Reply #86 - May 2^nd, 2018 at 2:39pm

Vicky wrote on May 2^nd, 2018 at 1:00pm:

Subtle Traveler,

Thanks for pointing me toward Frank's blog entries. I haven't read his stuff before, (even though I do have a couple of his books) but have only heard of what he writes through friends, but I'm seeing how much I understand and relate to what he writes about because it's right in line with how I think about our reality and what I know and believe from my own experiences.

Can you explain a little about what the All-D concept? It means the coexistance of everything in and across all dimensions at the same time, as opposed to the concept of "here now, there later" kind of thing right?

Hi Vicky … thanks for engaging here!

Great question! Yes ... the scaffolding you present (e.g., some conceptual logic) is necessary to begin to absorb and make it your own. Nothing wrong with starting there.

First, when I use the term "All-D" ... I am suggesting everything physical and non-physical. And, while anyone's answer to this question really needs to come within (e.g., it has to resonate) ... maybe I can "prime the pump" a bit.

Second, while living in our physical body ... we are perceiving mostly separation (e.g., primarily separation from our non-3D selves). However also ... you and I appear separate ... you in Colorado ... I am in California. These examples of 3D limitations (of 3D time and space) are continually reinforced by the physical body ... which deeply influences our perceptions and interpretations. So, gaining a sense of the "All-D" is eventually an exercise in consciousness (e.g., not logic), so as that happens the old scaffolding naturally falls away (e.g., but nothing wrong with starting with logic). This is a basic building block (which I know you understand), but I feel that I need to mention it for those following along.

My basic point is that the All-D is always there, however we are continually reminded (by our physical apparatus of separation). That does not mean that separation is bad or some kind of original sin. It is a part of being extended here in the 3D, while our non-3D community supports us.

Third, there is a whole other element of "logic and scaffolding" to this. It is not just about space (e.g., a perception of our body) ... it is MORE ... you and I are All-D (as beings). So, perceived separation is directly related to how we perceive the 3D setting (which itself is an integral part of the All-D). And ... TGU continually reminds DeMarco we essentially exist in all dimensions (e.g., if there are actually dimensions). And, I have to admit that I have not completely absorbed what TGU means by all this.

It difficult to describe some of this, because human language immediately inserts "separation" into eveything that I am communicating. However, we know that is more than that.

As TGU noted today, as physical beings we extend here from that non-3D community. I like this pointer (e.g., extending from my non-3D community). It resonates with me so I use it often.

Which books from DeMarco do you have? I ask because most of the content I am drawing from came to be published after 2009-2010 (after the transition of Rita Warren).

Back to top

IP Logged

seagullresting

Full Member

Offline

ALK Member

Posts: 137
USA

Re: Subtle Travel
Reply #87 - May 2^nd, 2018 at 3:35pm

I am enjoying the conversation. I am no intellectual, so I won't pretend to be one, but what I am hearing is a repetition of the idea that we are not separate from 'spirit' -- by no means. We are spirit. We are talking about the volcano under the ocean. Sometimes it seems below the waves and inactive. Sometimes it creates a new island. We are the volcano and we are the island. We are also all that is above the island. It is all one, and it is all good.

Back to top

IP Logged

Vicky

YaBB Administrator

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2170
Colorado
Gender: female

MOVED POST
Reply #88 - May 2^nd, 2018 at 4:25pm

PLEASE NOTE: I moved a post by Recoverer 2 onto the "Off Topic Forum and gave it the title of Seth for the sake of staying on topic here in this thread as requested by Subtle Traveler.

When I have to make decisions like this there are a few choices I have in order to do it. I chose this route for the sake of greatest continuity in the conversation as it has played out so far. My other choices are that I can move multiple posts, picking and choosing which ones, or I can even move parts of posts, or I can even delete posts or just parts of posts. Anyway, I think this was the best option all things considered so that we don't start having multiple conversations within this thread that are veering off topic.

Recoverer 2, I'm sorry but I have to agree with this move of your post. It was the best choice I could make in order to keep the thread on topic but to also give you the opportunity to have a conversation about what you wish to discuss. So for now I've moved it "off topic". If you want to continue having conversations about Seth you can start a new thread. I don't know anything about the Seth material or Jane Roberts. If you are going to use that topic as a topic about her as an author, then it should go in the Authors' Works Forum which is what I created that forum for. Otherwise, please feel free to have your own thread dedicated to your choice of discussion where appropriate.

Thanks everyone.

Vicky

Back to top

Author of Persephone's Journey (Amazon.com)

http://www.vickyshort.blogspot.com/

IP Logged

Subtle Traveler

Full Member

Offline

Member

Posts: 134
US
Gender: male

Re: Subtle Travel
Reply #89 - May 2^nd, 2018 at 4:35pm

seagullresting wrote on May 2^nd, 2018 at 3:35pm:

I am enjoying the conversation. I am no intellectual, so I won't pretend to be one, but what I am hearing is a repetition of the idea that we are not separate from 'spirit' -- by no means. We are spirit. We are talking about the volcano under the ocean. Sometimes it seems below the waves and inactive. Sometimes it creates a new island. We are the volcano and we are the island. We are also all that is above the island. It is all one, and it is all good.

hey SGR ... thanks for chiming in!

I like what you are suggesting with "waves and volcanos". It actually relates. The metaphor (or scaffolding) that TGU has been discussing is "the weather" (e.g., the weather = Spirit). You are closer than you may realize.

(lol)

I might add to your comment that what I am learning is that we are BOTH (1) not separate from Spirit, and (2) not separate from our guidance or community of souls supporting us. There is a difference between them, and it primarily relates to being human. Some Spirits create souls with a human, 3D experience (e.g., complex beings with the soul a primary form). Some do not become human souls, and are considered "Unitary Beings" (remaining Spirit but having their own form).

While Spirit creates soul(s) or complex beings (e.g., humans), Spirit does not always become a soul (e.g., unitary). This is how things are consistently presented in DeMarco's recent discussions with his guides (TGU).

These labels provide a way to temporarily discuss and share these things.

Back to top

IP Logged