Questions about Seth Material and its validity

This is, as I understand it, so that All That Is can experience and learn from our lives, our incarnations, our loves, hopes, tragedies, struggles and perspectives. This creates a feedback which generates an evolution of knowing. Every individual exists as a contrast, both to other individuals and to the source itself, even though their individuality is something of an illusion - it is a necessary illusion.

 To be honest such theories always rubbed the wrong way, it implies a desire which is linked to a need and imperfection, which I definitely have personal problems with but I think there might other issues, like how sir William Walker Atkinson put it here: "If God were evolving or improving, being an infinite being, it would have to be traceable back to some point of having an infinitely undeveloped state and condition."

 From an Advaita and neoplatonism standpoint, Brahman/The One was always perfect and is beyond attributes and such, and due to emanation/maya comes the things which we usually call "everything" and this is the being we call Ishvara/Nous, and while this being is in a lower level of existence than The One or Brahman it's still perfect in a sense so this theory shouldn't apply. After this there's a lot of beings like demiurges (however some equate it with Nous but let's say they are different here) which are in a lower level of existence and while powerful and "creators" in a sense abd both this desire theory and my third question should apply to them.

 Sorry if my stuff seems incoherent, but these things are hard to speak of, but all in all if we apply desire theory and contents of my third question we might be able to conclude that the entity Seth speaks of isn't the highest being or true "all that is" however it might be seem like it from a lower being's point of view... or I have some misunderstandings here which is expected as I'm not really familiar with material (but I guess now you understand why that third question is so important to me 🤣)

 Anyway, sorry again for my little rambling here!

Just a minor point concerning Spira's views on this matter. I made this post a little while back which comments on a video that suggests Spira can entertain the idea that the individual mind or soul goes on without dissolving into source consciousness, for something at least beyond what you described as "shortly thereafter".

 To be honest Mr Spira's case is a bit weird

 I mean I've seen some of his videos and articles and in some cases appears contradictory, even in some cases contradictory with some psi evidences we have.

 Also it goes without saying that he and some other "non dual teachers" are more or less indirectly responsible for shaping community of new age parrots (since they all copy and say the same thing) who have poisoned a lot of spiritual communities. 

So all in all, I've mixed feelings about him.

 Well that's unfortunate as I more or less created all of this due to this 

 But in any case it talks about possibility of other sources and this source might not be the ultimate one or there are other sources in the same hierarchy, perhaps I could've elaborated more, but maybe reddit comments can help as well?

Ok, well I can comment but I don't know how much it will add to the discussion.

Seth is consistent in referring to one source: All That Is. As far as I am aware, this is in line with other idealistic and non-dualist concepts: the idea of the One of which we (humanity, nature, the universe, consciousness - everything) a part. As I understand it, this is a self-contained whole. There is no outside just as there is no "internal" separation.

Nevertheless, in my feeble attempt to imagine the thoughts of this ubiquitous consciousness, I could assume that there must have been the consideration that another such self-contained consciousness might exist but that by the very nature of being self-contained, there could be no point of contact between them. As I say, from a lowly human paersective this conjecture is almost laughable in its inadequacy and I would add that I, personally, am pretty low down that "lowly" scale.

 To be honest such theories always rubbed the wrong way, it implies a desire which is linked to a need and imperfection, which I definitely have personal problems with but I think there might other issues, like how sir William Walker Atkinson put it here: "If God were evolving or improving, being an infinite being, it would have to be traceable back to some point of having an infinitely undeveloped state and condition."

 From an Advaita and neoplatonism standpoint, Brahman/The One was always perfect and is beyond attributes and such, and due to emanation/maya comes the things which we usually call "everything" and this is the being we call Ishvara/Nous, and while this being is in a lower level of existence than The One or Brahman it's still perfect in a sense so this theory shouldn't apply. After this there's a lot of beings like demiurges (however some equate it with Nous but let's say they are different here) which are in a lower level of existence and while powerful and "creators" in a sense abd both this desire theory and my third question should apply to them.

 Sorry if my stuff seems incoherent, but these things are hard to speak of, but all in all if we apply desire theory and contents of my third question we might be able to conclude that the entity Seth speaks of isn't the highest being or true "all that is" however it might be seem like it from a lower being's point of view... or I have some misunderstandings here which is expected as I'm not really familiar with material (but I guess now you understand why that third question is so important to me 🤣)

 Anyway, sorry again for my little rambling here!

Again, I'll have to elucidate my own thoughts on this idea of an "evolving God".

I get what you (and Atkinson) are saying but I see it differently. This is extemely difficult for me to put in a nutshell because of the complexities around the nature of time or our human perception of time. I'll try to get back to that in a moment. But the salient point of my understanding is that there is evidence of teleology.To me, there is a point; a purpose and so there must be evolution towards that goal. Perhaps the goal is indeed perfection and I think I read in one of the Seth books (or it could have been elsewhere) that perfection is impossible but still the goal of perfection is why we (anything/everything) exist. Furthermore, if perfection were reachable then at the point of attaining perfection we (everything) would cease to exist.

Now, coming back to teleology: this suggests a timeline (as does evolution). Yet it probably seems contradictory that the Seth Material insists that time is an illusion peculiar to our physical world. Indeed, I have read many NDE accounts, watched similar videos and read several books on various forms of After-Death Communications which seem to confirm that time does not exist on the "other side".  How to reconcile this apparent contradiction? I'm not sure I can but my best effort is to refer to something else in the Seth material where he describes the nature of events (sometimes he calls them "dramas"). Events play out in order of cause and effect but they are not really time restricted. It is possible to replay events and even influence the outcomes. This is all part of that huge complexity I mantioned earlier because in order to make sense of this event plasticity we need to introduce the concept of "probabilities" which is arguably the main thrust of Sethian teaching. In some ways, the Seth idea of probabilities is something like the Everett Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum physics. However, Seth's probabilities are beyond physics, even quantum physics, so the limitations of a materialistic worldview do not apply. The mind is not subject to those limitations so infinite probabilities are possible.

So, to retrun to the point about teleology, I try to conceptualise Seth's description of an expanding present (as opposed to linear time) in which events play out and thus add to the experience of our "evolving God". I have to admit that I am on very shaky ground with all of this because I am human and I am pre-disposed to think in terms of time and it is very difficult to consider alternatives without having to use terms which imply the passage of time: teleology, evolution, progress, goals, etc.

I tried to find the Seth references but it is an overwhelming task. For anyone interested, this seems to be a good starting point:

https://nowdictation.com/q/simultaneous/

Ok, well I can comment but I don't know how much it will add to the discussion.

Seth is consistent in referring to one source: All That Is. As far as I am aware, this is in line with other idealistic and non-dualist concepts: the idea of the One of which we (humanity, nature, the universe, consciousness - everything) a part. As I understand it, this is a self-contained whole. There is no outside just as there is no "internal" separation.

Nevertheless, in my feeble attempt to imagine the thoughts of this ubiquitous consciousness, I could assume that there must have been the consideration that another such self-contained consciousness might exist but that by the very nature of being self-contained, there could be no point of contact between them. As I say, from a lowly human paersective this conjecture is almost laughable in its inadequacy and I would add that I, personally, am pretty low down that "lowly" scale.

 Hey there, sorry for not answering back in such a long time, I had some problems.

 I agree with "There is no outside just as there is no "internal" separation", and I guess the OP in that reddit post tried to imply that this entity is subset of another entity or something like that which relates to your statement here.

 Anyway, thanks for your help and efforts, I really appreciate it

[Ninshub]

Thanks, Ian. Yes, I remember watching that video before (although I just watched the whole of it again) but I still get the impression that he considers that after-death environment to be very temporary and short-lived. Perhaps because he quickly qulaifies what he is saying by assuring us that this is not the reunification with the universal formless consciousness but merely a temporary stage we experience. Maybe I'm missing something that he explains elsewhere?

In any case, this talk, like many of his other videos, leaves me hanging in mid-air. The people he is talking to invariably say, at the end, that they now understand but that is not how I feel. I always feel that he stops short and, as I say, leaves me hanging. Nevertheless, there is always something I agree with and in this one I was entirely with him when he was explaining what he referred to as Sheldrake's morphic resonance. Yes indeed - that feeling of a connection regadless of space or time is very real to me.

I'm less into Spira right now and that sort of thing, but I just watched this short video that was on my youtube algorhythm that touches on this topic, FWIW. He does admit to proposing a model, not knowing what the reality is, which I appreciate (in his case), since it's philosophical/human incarnate experiential and not paranormal-evidential, and the way he speaks here seems to leave space for all kinds of afterdeath and paranormal realities and connections.

[Ninshub]

And here Rupert thinks his model allows for angels/angel minds...