IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Wiki whacky | Main | Seth and NDEs »

Comments

Good post!

When I first encountered the Seth material many moons ago, I was still under the influence of various Eastern and "esoteric" teachings, which mostly taught that our current earthly personality was merely a mask that was worn by the larger Self for this one brief lifetime. After death, once the experiences and lessons of this lifetime were assimilated and absorbed by the larger Self, the earthly persona itself was also so absorbed. Then the larger Self would put forth another persona (incarnation) to have a different set of experiences. (Notice how, in this model, the larger Self, though existing outside of time, seems bound to an oddly linear, time-bound kind of procedure....)

Anyway, I was highly skeptical of Seth's contention that the earthly personality is NOT absorbed in this fashion, but instead continues its development in non-earthly environments under the aegis of the larger Self. This seemed dubious to me - I wondered if some of Jane Roberts' early Catholic training was possibly leaking through here. The Christian idea that our current earthly personality is resurrected and goes on FOREVER always struck me as a horrifying idea (very possibly, of course, my understanding of this idea was superficial).

But I ran into the more Sethian model in other sources as well, sources which I had some respect for. One of these was Robert Monroe, who describes how he made contact with his own "I-there" or "I-cluster" - basically, a living community of all the personalities he (his larger Self) has ever been. All of them - from cavemen to medieval monks to modern people - are there in a living community. They are not absorbed in a higher Self. They are more like - yes - living facets of a single Diamond. (See Monroe's books "Far Journeys" and "Ultimate Journey")

I found exactly the same idea again in the channeled Myers material, "The Road to Immortality", with all of its talk about group-souls.... and I began to think that, just maybe, it was the Eastern-influenced "esoteric" ideas that were the crude ones, trying to bind a timeless and multi-dimensional reality like the Soul to a rather dry and linear process of one life at a time, bound by a simple-minded notion of cause and effect called karma....

Just my $0.02.

"... the body is actually blinking off and on."
This seems to fit in with your ideas, in my opinion. The interesting thing is that Jane Roberts came up with this in the early '70s, before the personal computer and computer monitor. She and her husband used typewriters. I find it very interesting that she came up with this.

"... the body is actually blinking off and on."

Yeah, but in the seventies they had TV screens which did the same thing - and film is effectively 20 or 30 frames a second. The theosophosts talked of vobration and frequency - the same idea, really.


"...through means far too difficult to explain here, you add to the experience of the superself and also then extend the nature of its reality."

This is one reason I don't like Seth (apart from the convoluted language and doublespeak you refer to, Michael). Really useful and important information like that is "too difficult to explain". Phooey! If you really understand something, you can always explain it, at least in simplified terms.


Hello, Michael.

This is a little outside the model of information, but it would also be interesting to focus on the problems is formulated in this thread:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/5343-two-fundamental-problems-afterlife.html

Do you think?

Good point, Barbara, I guess she could have picked it up from that.

On the other hand, one thing that made an impression on me was the difference in material supposedly channeled by Seth, and then material written by Jane Roberts. They just seemed world's different. That doesn't mean there was an actual Seth that Jane was channeling. It would mean somehow Jane was accessing a different part of her personality to create the Seth material, which is just as interesting in my opinion.

"to focus on the problems as formulated in this thread"

I can't say I find those problems (or alleged problems) very interesting. He seems to be coming at it from the assumption that physicality is all that exists, and then asking, "Where in physical space is the afterlife located?"

I come at it from the opposite perspective - that mind-space, pure information, and consciousness are all that exist. There is no physical space at all.

So for me, at least, the questions he poses are irrelevant. However, if other people want to chime in, have at it!

The comments to this entry are closed.