Michael Prescott on the Seth material

4 Replies, 888 Views

Michael Prescott has recent twin blog articles on the topic:

Book review (part one): The Seth Material
Quote:I've read bits and pieces of the writings attributed to Seth, an entity purportedly channeled by Jane Roberts, whose teachings were reproduced in a series of bestselling books, but I haven't made a sustained study of the subject. Recently, since I've been looking into the subject of possession, and Jane Roberts's trance states seem to qualify, I decided to read at least one complete book in the series.


I chose The Seth Material. Originally published in 1970, The Seth Material is Roberts's first book to go into depth about her channeling experiences. I'm finding it something of a mixed bag, and since there's a lot to parse here, I plan to review it in sections as I go along. This review covers the book through Chapter 7.



Book review (part two): The Seth Material
Quote:Continuing my look at Jane Roberts's 1970 book The Seth Material, today I'll cover chapters 8 through 13. This takes us about two-thirds of the way through the book.

A good part of this section deals with Jane's ESP abilities, which seem to be legitimate (if we can accept her account at face value – and I think we probably can, given the endorsements provided by some parapsychologists). What I find more interesting is the philosophical material purportedly channeled by Jane, speaking with the voice of Seth, a high-level discarnate entity.

Seth's discussion of reincarnation matches up pretty well with my own speculations on the subject. Essentially he tells us that past, present, and future are concepts that don't apply to the higher self. Accordingly, all incarnations are lived simultaneously, even though, as a matter of convenience, they can be described as past or future lives from our current perspective.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Ninshub's post:
  • Valmar
(2018-07-21, 04:55 PM)Ninshub Wrote: Michael Prescott has recent twin blog articles on the topic:

Book review (part one): The Seth Material



Book review (part two): The Seth Material

It is more than 35 years since I read my first Seth book (also The Seth Material) and subsequently a few more and those books still qualify as the single biggest influence on my thinking on these subjects. That is despite my continuing misgivings about the nature of the Seth entity and whether or not "he" was a creation of Jane's subconscious through which to deliver the material. Other misgivings include some of the historical information - especially about the Christ personality. This troubled me for a long time but eventually I accepted that such information is inevitably filtered, to some extent, through the consciousness of the channel. 

So, in my view, the bulk of the material may well have been drawn from the larger collective consciousness and channeled through the Seth personality but whether that personality was a discarnate entity or a subconscious manifestation is still open in my thinking.

I'm surprised that it has taken Michael Prescott so long to get around to reading Seth because his own blogs have often reflected much of what is explained in the Seth books. Yet that is true for so many of the thinkers who write on these subjects - I often find myself convinced they must have read Seth. That was true when I came across Tom Campbell so I wrote to him and asked. Yes, was the reply, he had read Seth and had been influenced while, at the same time, putting his own "spin" on the material, moderated by his own experiences and scientific training.
I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.
Freeman Dyson
(This post was last modified: 2018-07-21, 10:02 PM by Kamarling.)
[-] The following 3 users Like Kamarling's post:
  • Desperado, Ninshub, Valmar
(2018-07-21, 09:49 PM)Kamarling Wrote: It is more than 35 years since I read my first Seth book (also The Seth Material) and subsequently a few more and those books still qualify as the single biggest influence on my thinking on these subjects. That is despite my continuing misgivings about the nature of the Seth entity and whether or not "he" was a creation of Jane's subconscious through which to deliver the material. Other misgivings include some of the historical information - especially about the Christ personality. This troubled me for a long time but eventually I accepted that such information is inevitably filtered, to some extent, through the consciousness of the channel. 

So, in my view, the bulk of the material may well have been drawn from the larger collective consciousness and channeled through the Seth personality but whether that personality was a discarnate entity or a subconscious manifestation is still open in my thinking.

I'm surprised that it has taken Michael Prescott so long to get around to reading Seth because his own blogs have often reflected much of what is explained in the Seth books. Yet that is true for so many of the thinkers who write on these subjects - I often find myself convinced they must have read Seth. That was true when I came across Tom Campbell so I wrote to him and asked. Yes, was the reply, he had read Seth and had been influenced while, at the same time, putting his own "spin" on the material, moderated by his own experiences and scientific training.

I don't think the skeptics give proponents or people interested in this stuff any credit at all for the fact most of them aren't always sure it's actually a discarnate entity every single time or case. You'd think we were all morons chucking up everything to "well it must be a spirit" in blind faith from the way they potray things, but in the case of Prescott, he is pretty damn skeptical of plenty of cases. I guess the fact that he thinks there are ones that are best explained as being the work of a discarnate entity is why skeptics probably look over that fact, and attack instead.

As for this one, it's still definitely open in my mind. Mediumship is so fincky because super psi could definitely be a part in a number of the legit cases. Of all the survival phenomenon, mediumship is probably the most susceptible to super psi then the others. The opportunity for it to arise is there more often in my opinion, yet it's still not a blanket explanation for all the cases. 

Just FYI, I'm not a big fan of super psi, but like Titus Rivas and others have pointed out, it could definitely be an explanation for some cases. But definitely not all...
(This post was last modified: 2018-07-25, 03:30 AM by Desperado.)
[-] The following 3 users Like Desperado's post:
  • Obiwan, Typoz, Ninshub
@Desperado

You make an important point imho. It is very difficult to decide the source of the communication if there is no evidential content. In such cases, to assume that some or all of the communication is/isn't from the person presenting it is simply guesswork unless there is content which is in some way verifiable and which is unlikely to have originated with the person presenting it. I don't think it is useful to make unwarranted assumptions either way.

I don't see that all types of mediumship are necessarily susceptible to the super-psi hypothesis, particulary where information is passed which is either not know to the sitter or medium, or in some cases not known to any living person, or where there is good quality materialisation or good independent direct voice communication.

I try to keep an open mind when hearing channeled material but without supporting evidence, if it doesn't sound reasonable or if I feel I am being 'herded' or manipulated in some way then it can be safely disregarded as far as I can see.
[-] The following 2 users Like Obiwan's post:
  • Valmar, Doug
(2018-07-25, 05:07 PM)Obiwan Wrote: I try to keep an open mind when hearing channeled material but without supporting evidence, if it doesn't sound reasonable or if I feel I am being 'herded' or manipulated in some way then it can be safely disregarded as far as I can see.

Indeed. It behoves us all to keep an open - often sceptical - mind about such material. For me the Seth material has stood the test of time in that it is still as relevant now as when I first read it in the 80's or when it was dictated in the 60's and 70's. I think that Michael Prescott seems to be making a similar point* about its relevance. That doesn't mean that I don't question any of it and I still have an open mind about the nature of the Seth personality. But I'm not sure that really matters. 

The material is, for me, a body of work which describes how reality works. It is not so different to what other sages have taught since records began. Anyone familiar with the so-called perennial philosophy will instantly recognise it in the words of Seth. Much of what we have learned about quantum theory is there. The musings of David Bohm and Michael Talbot's take on the holographic universe can find parallels in the Seth books. So it isn't really important to me how Jane Roberts happened across a way to access and communicate that material. If Seth were the discarnate entity he is claimed to be, I am sure he would say the same.

*Although, on second reading, Michael P is a little more critical than I picked up previously. As someone pointed out in the comments, however, the book he is reviewing probably wasn't the best example as the later books seemed more philosophically sophisticated.
I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.
Freeman Dyson
(This post was last modified: 2018-07-26, 03:33 AM by Kamarling.)
[-] The following 2 users Like Kamarling's post:
  • Ninshub, Valmar

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)