Questions about Seth Material and its validity

Hello everyone,

 Just like the title suggests I needed some help regarding the Seth material (the whole thing I mean) and thought you could help me out.

 Well first of all I had question about the series' validity, and how much of it you think it's legit (like, was Roberts a fraud or all of her stuff came directly from Seth or some of it was from a ESP related source and some came from her mind like Michael Prescott suggest and so on)

 Second one is about some claims about its relation to science, while there are seemingly scientific inaccuracies some claimed that it has predicted things like black holes or is in line with quantum physics: (all of these are from this link https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich...erial.html)

Seems to be some negatively towards the Seth Material. I read them as they came out. I do agree on the superiority complex part. But then again,look at the contortions our various Gods demand. I can say that Seth predicted not just black holes but also " micro" black holes. Well before they were even theorized. Can't remember the particular book. Seth also stated that changing your thinking physically changes your brain. Something only recently proven. Not sure what it all means,but it must be something!

Unlike others here the Seth material has been pretty eye opening for me. I found areas to be hard to follow in the beginning but after revisiting them I was able to piece them into a better conceptual understanding. A lot of the material is highly theoretical and I think this level of detail is very impressive. Some people may not follow this sort of thing very well. I also feel that a con artist would not give themselves this much rope to be hung with. There's just way too much detail and a lot of it matches up to modern quantum physics and the work or mathematician Roger Penrose and others.

 So what's your opinion about these? Are these true and material really predicted these? And what about other things which doesn't seem to make sense like that odors makes physical reality thing which Mr Prescott mentions in his blog posts? (This might be inaccurate as I don't remember it well)

 And finally my third (and the real reason I made this post and got into material in the first place) question which I wanted your opinion on is... well, literally this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/lawofone/commen..._actually/

 Also I spoke about this a little in my pervious thread: (full thing is here which I suggest to read for better understanding of what I'm talking about https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-q...ci-danison)

this seemed like polytheism, so I had a discussion with a friend from reddit (u/lepandas who is a moderator at r/NDE and a subreddit related to Kastrup and idealism and also a follower of Advaita Vedanta) who told me there are other sources that mentions such thing like The Seth Material (which according to him says that "god or source is constantly looking to find others like it"), RJ Spina and Hindu myths but it's not a problem as they are ultimately manifestations and/or disassociation of the same being

 So what you all think about this? Any ideas? (And also, thanks in advance as I might not be able to respond immediately)

As a younger man I was very much influenced by the Seth material but I did question its origin (as did Jane Roberts herself). The way I think of it now is that Seth was possibly a personification created by the subconscious of Jane Roberts, by which she could deliver the material that came to her during trance. I think that such material is available, to some degeree, to all of us but that people with a more finely tuned receptive ability can access and deliver it more effectively. Perhaps this is universally available information, something like the fabled Akashic Record. Perhaps it is knowledge directed into the "spiritual ether" by spirit sources but, again, more readily accessed by those with the appropriately tuned psychic senses. Perhaps most so-called channeled material is of this nature. I am only surmising.

We should also bear in mind that the material is indeed filtered by the receiver. Jane Roberts was an accomplished writer of fiction and non-fiction so would have much of the necessary vocabulary to interpret and express the source material. That's not to say that the interpretation was always impreccably accurate just as any other mediumistic information can come through somewhat distorted but, in general, I think the Seth Material was some of the best and that what has come through other channels since Jane Roberts has often been a re-hash of that information - perhaps from the same generalised source which is received and interpreted by different channels.

As a younger man I was very much influenced by the Seth material but I did question its origin (as did Jane Roberts herself). The way I think of it now is that Seth was possibly a personification created by the subconscious of Jane Roberts, by which she could deliver the material that came to her during trance. I think that such material is available, to some degeree, to all of us but that people with a more finely tuned receptive ability can access and deliver it more effectively. Perhaps this is universally available information, something like the fabled Akashic Record. Perhaps it is knowledge directed into the "spiritual ether" by spirit sources but, again, more readily accessed by those with the appropriatly tuned psychic senses. Perhaps most so-called channeled material is of this nature. I am only surmising.

We should also bear in mind that the material is indeed filtered by the receiver. Jane Roberts was an accomplished writer of fiction and non-fiction so would have much of the necessary vocabulary to interpret and express the source material. That's not to say that the interpretation was always impreccably accurate just as any other mediumistic information can come through somewhat distorted but, in general, I think the Seth Material was some of the best and that what has come through other channels since Jane Roberts has often been a re-hash of that information - perhaps from the same generalised source which is received and interpreted by different channels.

 Thanks for your response! As a matter of fact I had more or less the same theory as you, in which you actually tap into subconscious but its information gets distorted by your ego (both by filtering things in a particular way or direct influence of your personal identity like unknowningly adding information and...) and such to a degree that it might enter realm of fabrication.

 And by the way, sorry for asking this as it might sound rude what do you think of my second and (more importantly) third question?

 Edit: sorry I had to remove a part of my post as I realized you're already familiar with it, sorry for it.

 Thanks for your response! As a matter of fact I had more or less the same theory as you, in which you actually tap into subconscious but its information gets distorted by your ego (both by filtering things in a particular way or direct influence of your personal identity like unknowningly adding information and...) and such to a degree that it might enter realm of fabrication.

 And by the way, sorry for asking this as it might sound rude what do you think of my second and (more importantly) third question?

 Edit: sorry I had to remove a part of my post as I realized you're already familiar with it, sorry for it.

I am not sure what you are looking for with your second question but, in any case, I am not a scientist so I can't really give an authoratative answer. Again, Jane Roberts was working with her own innate understanding (as a filter) and so I wouldn't expect exactitude. On the other hand, I read a book called "Bridging Science and Spirit" after reading much of the Seth material and this author seems to be very impressed.

As for your third point, I am sorry to say that I didn't understand the point being made in the quote you posted so I didn't comment. I have watched quite a few videos by Rupert Spira (an Advaita Vedanta proponent) and I know he is friends with and in agreement with Kastrup but I have certain disagreements with them both. The main disagreement being that they both seem to insist that the individual personality "dissolves" back into the source consciousness at physical death (or shortly thereafter). This is not in accord with the Seth material nor with, as far as I can see, the evidence from other After-Death communications and Near Death Experiences.

Actually, I would just like to clarify my last comment above. I do agree with Spira and Kastrup that there is actually no separation between the source consciousness and the individual.  What I am more inclined to believe, however, is that for reasons we probably can't comprehend (although Seth talks about this a great deal) is that the source (All That Is, to use Seth's term) creates fragments of its consciousness and those fragments are, essentially, what consitute our own individual minds. Still, my mind is not separate but it is, in a way, necessarily limited in scope and focus. 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.

It is worth noting that the full title of "Seth Speaks" is "Seth Speaks:The Eternal Validity of the Soul". This in itself confrims, to me, that the individual soul is eternal.

Oh dear, the more I think about this, the more I am reminded of how Seth explains it in the books. I can never remember which book contains which discussion but I have a decent recall of some of those explanations even though I can't point to a reference.

So again to add to what I wrote above: those fragments of consciousness are what we might call souls - and by that I mean the abiding essence of the spiritual being. That which exists as an entity even though it may undego thousands of incarnations with differing personalities. It might be said that each of those incarnations is, in turn, a fragment of the abiding soul. Seth even goes so far as to claim that we can have two fragments incarnated at the same time or in overlapping lifetimes. And perhaps even more surprising: that we can have a fragment incarnate as an animal - as a pet dog or cat, for example.

More important to understand, I think, is the notion that we, the created, are also co-creators. We create the reality of our own lives, we have free will and choices and our decisions matter. Our actions create Karma and we are entirely responsible for those decisions and actions. Not blind chance. Not random events. Not even the fault of our parents or education although those are great influences. We can renounce responsibily and hide behind blaming other people or events but I have a feeling that the inevitable truth is that we always have a choice. Not that I am saying that the choice is easy or obvious because all too often that is far from being the case. However, the opportunity to make the "wrong" choice or follow a less than ideal path may often prove to be the most direct route to learning a valuable lesson.

I suspect that the true appreciation of these karmic consequences will not come to us until the reincarnation cycle is complete. I should add that I don't believe in divine judgement or punishment; the hell we might experience is the hell we create for ourselves. Please be aware that these are only my own thoughts after reading Seth and other sources and attempting to piece together a consistent worldview. They are not necessarily an accurate account of Seth or any other teaching.

[Ninshub]

I have watched quite a few videos by Rupert Spira (an Advaita Vedanta proponent) and I know he is friends with and in agreement with Kastrup but I have certain disagreements with them both. The main disagreement being that they both seem to insist that the individual personality "dissolves" back into the source consciousness at physical death (or shortly thereafter). This is not in accord with the Seth material nor with, as far as I can see, the evidence from other After-Death communications and Near Death Experiences.

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".

It's interesting listening to this exchange because at 14 minutes the discussion leads to talking about how the finite mind is beyond what goes on in the waking state, which Spira says is called the "soul" in the Christian tradition, and then he goes to speak of a realm, after the death of the body, where this finite, personal mind continues to exist. It does not directly dissolve or go back to "infinite consciousness or God's infinite being". (Nice bit afterwards also about the interconnectedness of the localized minds.)

That would fit the Advaita Vedanta metaphysic of different levels of reality. On one level, I am Brahman, on another I am an individual soul (jiva). I like to think of it as different perspectives co-existing.

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".

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.

That would fit the Advaita Vedanta metaphysic of different levels of reality. On one level, I am Brahman, on another I am an individual soul (jiva). I like to think of it as different perspectives co-existing.

Now this I understand and agree with. It seems to fit nicely with how Seth explains the soul being at a different level to each individual personality. But in Seth's view, the soul is an intermediary entity with, as his book title suggests, an eternal validity.

As for your third point, I am sorry to say that I didn't understand the point being made in the quote you posted so I didn't comment.

 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?

I have watched quite a few videos by Rupert Spira (an Advaita Vedanta proponent) and I know he is friends with and in agreement with Kastrup but I have certain disagreements with them both. The main disagreement being that they both seem to insist that the individual personality "dissolves" back into the source consciousness at physical death (or shortly thereafter). This is not in accord with the Seth material nor with, as far as I can see, the evidence from other After-Death communications and Near Death Experiences.

 I'm not sure their relevance to this topic but yes, as a fellow idealist (I'm new however so not awfully knowledgeable) I'm quite familiar with them; and yes, both of them can be really sore on such matters.

 And finally about your stance on second question, don't worry about it; I just wanted to see if material really predicted those stuff while nobody knew or something like that, but all in all as I'm mot sure what I expected to find. (an astrophysicist maybe? )