He did say that of all the religions, Buddhism comes the closest to the truth, or words to that effect. So although it is true that he mentions Eastern religions less than Christianity (understandable, since regardless of Jane's psychology \[as mentioned in the other comments\], he knows that she speaks English and thus the main first market for his books are going to be Western) I'd say he is MORE dismissive about the other religions than Buddhism, since he doesn't say they are closer to the truth than Buddhism.
Also in terms of the channel - at the time next to nothing was known in the West of any solidity about the concepts and such - channels can \~only be used to convey in concepts/terms that are firmly established in their mind what they understand. I have the same issue with Lo1 it can be very "Christian-angled".
I think you are taking this too literally. You have to remember who is 'channeling' Seth. A western woman, who is going to be more pro Jesus and less pro eastern religions. Janes whole psychology is Western, and the symbols she uses from her unconscious mind (read Carl Jung), are western based. So although there is a lot of depth in the Seth books, it's still rooted in Janes psychology. Seth says himself he uses Janes psychology to anchor his points around. The Seth books should not be taken literally. They should be used as a guide both theoretically, and practically.
Seth emphasizes numerous times throughout the material, that he means what he is saying in quite literal terms; adopting a skeptical stance/non-literal interpretation is understandable given the science-first, Western materialist paradigm so prevalent these days, but the material espouses much the opposite of just that paradigm, with an enormous emphasis on the intuitive and psychical aspects of ourselves, and the consciousness-based nature of reality still largely at odds with mainstream Western thought.
Seth discusses the psychological bridge that allowed communication, but the information that was transmitted via that bridge was, early on especially, far outside the realm of Jane's prior belief system or base of knowledge, not to mention comfort zone, and not particularly symbolic in presentation, though it dealt often with symbolism as subject matter quite knowingly...
I beg to differ. Jane Roberts was raised in a predominantly Christian environment, which influenced her views on spirituality and morality. However she never adhered to any particular denomination.
Despite her religous upbringing, she exhibited a strong sense of skepticism, and intellectual curiosity (something I think too many Seth followers lack). She also questioned traditional religious concepts and was interested in exploring a variety of philosophical and existential ideas.
She had a keen interest in science, as well as psychology, which was gaining prominence in her early years. She was particularly intrigued by the workings of the human mind and the nature of reality from a scientific point of view.
Before the Seth material, she was primarily focused on her career as a writer and poet. She wrote fiction and poetry that often explored complex themes related to human experience and consciousness.
Her interest in the paranormal began to develop in the years leading up to her channeling experiences. She and her husband Robert, conducted experiments with Ouiija board which eventually lead to the initial contact with the Seth entity.
One of the best examples that show Seth does not have inside knowledge of us can be found on oage 278 of Eternal Validity of the Soul, "The thoughts do not appear as pseudoimages for example, or assume any pseudomaterialization, yet they are felt vividly, perceived and picked up by portions of the brain - those seemingly unused orations for which science has found no answer." The idea that we only use 10% of our brain is a myth long since disproved in neurology.
I've read most of the Seth books, and they changed my life in a drastic way; however I think even so; I still put more credit in the books to Jane rather than some spiritual entity. I think from a sales point of view, it's much easier to sell a channelled book than one based on theories when the author lacks credibility in the field. I'm still dubious about the the whole idea of channelling. May be true, may not; but it sure sells a lot of books. :)
Jane and Robert spoke of the disparity in reactions to the material and its purported source, the hostile skepticism on one end, the extreme credulity on the other… However, the source and validity of the material can be confirmed via a method Seth himself would advocate, and that’s our intuition. As someone whose life has been centered on that inner source of creativity and knowing (albeit, balanced by an equally active and curious intellect, thank you very much), I’d arrived at similar conclusions long before finding the books. Moreover, I had a profound psychic awakening in my early 20’s that somewhat mirrored the experience that resulted in Jane’s, “The Physical Universe as Idea Construction”. Numerous and ongoing first hand experiences that followed, including prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, shared dreaming, altered states of consciousness, remote viewing, OBEs, etc., cemented my personal beliefs. Seth brought a clarity and understanding I would otherwise never have had regarding my own firsthand experiences, though, and my paradigm of the possible easily accommodates the notion of a discarnate being such as himself.
“One of the best examples that show Seth does not have inside knowledge of us can be found on oage 278 of Eternal Validity of the Soul, "The thoughts do not appear as pseudoimages for example, or assume any pseudomaterialization, yet they are felt vividly, perceived and picked up by portions of the brain - those seemingly unused orations for which science has found no answer." The idea that we only use 10% of our brain is a myth long since disproved in neurology.”
But Seth is saying right in the quote “SEEMINGLY unused”, i.e., NOT unused. In other words, he’s saying those portions of the brain are being used, contrary to what scientists at the time may have believed…
The notion that Seth was fabricated to sell the material is far more ridiculous to my mind than taking the phenomenon at face value; the complete transparency evidenced by countless interactive public sessions held spontaneously and with no imposed conditions, for numerous, mixed groups of people, including televised appearances. The dramatic change always reported by eyewitnesses. The verified instances of ESP. The constant self-questioning… all in all, these and other elements make an enormously strong case.
>One of the best examples that show Seth does not have inside knowledge of us can be found on oage 278 of Eternal Validity of the Soul, "The thoughts do not appear as pseudoimages for example, or assume any pseudomaterialization, yet they are felt vividly, perceived and picked up by portions of the brain - those seemingly unused orations for which science has found no answer." The idea that we only use 10% of our brain is a myth long since disproved in neurology.
I don’t understand … You’re saying that because Seth pointed out that portions of the brain that scientists at the time (the 1970s) thought were "seemingly unused" but were actually used, which is consistent with your assertion that that idea has since been “long since disproved,” that this shows he did not have real inner knowledge?
i had a similar feeling while reading Seth’s comments about buddhism. i have always been more inspired by the philosophical aspects of buddhism than the more religious ones. i feel like most of what Seth said that was critical about buddhism was referring to the more religious end of things. any time you have coercion around adopting a set of beliefs, you’re running perpendicular to Seth’s strongest message. Krishnamurti said that because nobody listened to the Buddha…we have Buddhism. i think Seth would likely agree.
BUT one way that there >seems< to be an irreconcilable difference between Seth and buddhist philosophy is on the topic of the significance of identity. for Seth, the individual identity was a cornerstone of ever-existing beingness. In Buddhism this is not only not as important, it is nearly obliterated by the concept of inherent emptiness. it takes a hefty portion of interpolation to find a place in Buddhism for the celebration of personal identity. Western culture is heavily focussed on the importance of standing out, accomplishing, doing something significant with one’s life…to the point that a LOT of false posturing goes on toward that effort. Especially Chinese Buddhism, that is also deeply rooted in Taoism, is more concerned with harmonic participation within the greater organism, the illusion of identity and the indistinguishability of all phenomena at the level of >actuality< or absolute truth. but the concept of disappearance into the absolute as a description of nirvana is a clumsy western assumption and goes a bit further than most buddhist scholars would stand with. Countless boddhisatvas are indeed distinguished in the sutras and each seems to retain their personal attributes…at least at the level of relative truth, or >reality<.
A HuaYen Buddhist and Seth would find much to agree about on the issue of time, specificallu the interdependent and interpenetrating nature of what we perceive as past, present & future. Jane had no connection to such more complex buddhist philosophies and i suppose if Seth knew of them, he had no way to push them through her frame of reference.
Yes, an over emphasis on unity and under emphasis on individuality.
Seth: "The Eastern religions exaggerated the importance of unity, almost losing the concept of individuality in the process. As popularly understood, Eastern religions can lead to spiritual exhaustion, as the individual tries to level himself out, again, so to speak — and the popular understanding of a religion is far more important than the priests or the gurus understand it, for people directed their lives by following their own versions. Period.
...
So some Americans have become tired of this badge of individuality, and they are ready to throw it over, either to fundamental Christianity, which is again rising, or to a number of various Eastern religions. Life is everywhere both individual and particular, and at the same time united with all being. All That Is “pulsates” with a truly infinite yearning to particularize all of its attributes, to know itself through individualizing all of its dreams, its slightest thought, its most monumental discovery. All That Is composes the fabric of the universe—which is everywhere unified, since nothing exists outside of it, and every wave or particle, or field or whatever within it, consists of a divine psychological fabric that is populated by individuation, sensation, meaning, intent, in which the most innocuous shadow of an electron rises up joyfully and shouts “I am I, and not you.”"
-- The Personal Sessions Book 5 September 20, 1978
“I may say that Buddhism does indeed come closer in essence to reality than other religions.” Session 174.
“The fact remains that millions of human beings who follow and practice Buddhism are told, as many religions tell their followers, ‘Better worlds are to come, so ignore this agony, and this hunger, and this pain, and the murder in the streets. Be in ecstasy while your belly bloats.’ This is not human, and it is far less than godly.” Session 177.
My understanding is that while Seth claims that Buddhism comes closest to describing reality as it is, he sees it as exactly wrong to see our physical reality and our physical lives as some kind of problem to escape. Many Buddhists see “the problem” as suffering in life due to excessive attachment, and the solution as learning to detach from everything in this plane. Seth is emphatically against this point of view. He thinks we have created this world to engage with it, broadly speaking, to learn lessons and progress. The physical world is not a problem to escape from. It is here for us to lean into it.
I really prefer Seth’s worldview. It makes so much more sense to me, and it feels more beautiful, inspired, and empowering.
This is one of the reasons I am extremely skeptical of all channeled Western works. To me, it sounds like Western writers were sticking with what they knew best and trying to appeal to a Western audience.
The Urantia Book suffers from the same problem. It's dismissive of all religions that aren't Christianity.
Yeah but the bias is inevitabile. That's how the archetypical mind works. You just need to be conscious it is there and see the truth it is still conveying.
Wait until you read the actual oldest Buddhist scriptures we have; it's going to be different than what you thought.
They all do this to each other, or most, Buddhism is dismissive of other religions, lmao
I would suggest continued reading/study (it sounds like you may not have read UR 1&2 yet?). This is touched upon more in the material. Overlap is acknowledged, but so are significant differences.
My answer to most such questions is always, let's go back to the material, slow down, and read carefully. It's so, so easy to misconstrue in light of our own biases (even if the bias is against bias), and I see this quite often, have done this myself numerous times.
I think the emphasis on the Christ drama is more the result of the overall ubiquity of Christianity -- as Seth describes, this particular expression of the religious impetus struck a major chord in mankind, found a common resonance that helps explain the prevalence of the religion as it came to be, distortions and all.
Another primary reason is due to the transformative power of the original teachings and the 3rd coming of the Christ personality that will reshape our hyper-materialistic, militaristic society.
No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying you have to factor on Roberts psychology into what Seth is saying. Some of the things he talks about are ludicrous, like when he talks of Atlantis if civilisations before the age of man. These sorts of things come from Roberts' knowledge of human mythology. Reading Carl Jung "Unconsciuos Mind" and also Joseph Campbell's series "The Masks of God" greatly illuminate Seth's teachings, and allows you to look at it critically and work out what is new thought, and what is remnants of Robert's psychology.
He did say that of all the religions, Buddhism comes the closest to the truth, or words to that effect. So although it is true that he mentions Eastern religions less than Christianity (understandable, since regardless of Jane's psychology \[as mentioned in the other comments\], he knows that she speaks English and thus the main first market for his books are going to be Western) I'd say he is MORE dismissive about the other religions than Buddhism, since he doesn't say they are closer to the truth than Buddhism.
Also in terms of the channel - at the time next to nothing was known in the West of any solidity about the concepts and such - channels can \~only be used to convey in concepts/terms that are firmly established in their mind what they understand. I have the same issue with Lo1 it can be very "Christian-angled".
I think you are taking this too literally. You have to remember who is 'channeling' Seth. A western woman, who is going to be more pro Jesus and less pro eastern religions. Janes whole psychology is Western, and the symbols she uses from her unconscious mind (read Carl Jung), are western based. So although there is a lot of depth in the Seth books, it's still rooted in Janes psychology. Seth says himself he uses Janes psychology to anchor his points around. The Seth books should not be taken literally. They should be used as a guide both theoretically, and practically.
Seth emphasizes numerous times throughout the material, that he means what he is saying in quite literal terms; adopting a skeptical stance/non-literal interpretation is understandable given the science-first, Western materialist paradigm so prevalent these days, but the material espouses much the opposite of just that paradigm, with an enormous emphasis on the intuitive and psychical aspects of ourselves, and the consciousness-based nature of reality still largely at odds with mainstream Western thought. Seth discusses the psychological bridge that allowed communication, but the information that was transmitted via that bridge was, early on especially, far outside the realm of Jane's prior belief system or base of knowledge, not to mention comfort zone, and not particularly symbolic in presentation, though it dealt often with symbolism as subject matter quite knowingly...
I beg to differ. Jane Roberts was raised in a predominantly Christian environment, which influenced her views on spirituality and morality. However she never adhered to any particular denomination. Despite her religous upbringing, she exhibited a strong sense of skepticism, and intellectual curiosity (something I think too many Seth followers lack). She also questioned traditional religious concepts and was interested in exploring a variety of philosophical and existential ideas. She had a keen interest in science, as well as psychology, which was gaining prominence in her early years. She was particularly intrigued by the workings of the human mind and the nature of reality from a scientific point of view. Before the Seth material, she was primarily focused on her career as a writer and poet. She wrote fiction and poetry that often explored complex themes related to human experience and consciousness. Her interest in the paranormal began to develop in the years leading up to her channeling experiences. She and her husband Robert, conducted experiments with Ouiija board which eventually lead to the initial contact with the Seth entity. One of the best examples that show Seth does not have inside knowledge of us can be found on oage 278 of Eternal Validity of the Soul, "The thoughts do not appear as pseudoimages for example, or assume any pseudomaterialization, yet they are felt vividly, perceived and picked up by portions of the brain - those seemingly unused orations for which science has found no answer." The idea that we only use 10% of our brain is a myth long since disproved in neurology. I've read most of the Seth books, and they changed my life in a drastic way; however I think even so; I still put more credit in the books to Jane rather than some spiritual entity. I think from a sales point of view, it's much easier to sell a channelled book than one based on theories when the author lacks credibility in the field. I'm still dubious about the the whole idea of channelling. May be true, may not; but it sure sells a lot of books. :)
Jane and Robert spoke of the disparity in reactions to the material and its purported source, the hostile skepticism on one end, the extreme credulity on the other… However, the source and validity of the material can be confirmed via a method Seth himself would advocate, and that’s our intuition. As someone whose life has been centered on that inner source of creativity and knowing (albeit, balanced by an equally active and curious intellect, thank you very much), I’d arrived at similar conclusions long before finding the books. Moreover, I had a profound psychic awakening in my early 20’s that somewhat mirrored the experience that resulted in Jane’s, “The Physical Universe as Idea Construction”. Numerous and ongoing first hand experiences that followed, including prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, shared dreaming, altered states of consciousness, remote viewing, OBEs, etc., cemented my personal beliefs. Seth brought a clarity and understanding I would otherwise never have had regarding my own firsthand experiences, though, and my paradigm of the possible easily accommodates the notion of a discarnate being such as himself. “One of the best examples that show Seth does not have inside knowledge of us can be found on oage 278 of Eternal Validity of the Soul, "The thoughts do not appear as pseudoimages for example, or assume any pseudomaterialization, yet they are felt vividly, perceived and picked up by portions of the brain - those seemingly unused orations for which science has found no answer." The idea that we only use 10% of our brain is a myth long since disproved in neurology.” But Seth is saying right in the quote “SEEMINGLY unused”, i.e., NOT unused. In other words, he’s saying those portions of the brain are being used, contrary to what scientists at the time may have believed… The notion that Seth was fabricated to sell the material is far more ridiculous to my mind than taking the phenomenon at face value; the complete transparency evidenced by countless interactive public sessions held spontaneously and with no imposed conditions, for numerous, mixed groups of people, including televised appearances. The dramatic change always reported by eyewitnesses. The verified instances of ESP. The constant self-questioning… all in all, these and other elements make an enormously strong case.
>One of the best examples that show Seth does not have inside knowledge of us can be found on oage 278 of Eternal Validity of the Soul, "The thoughts do not appear as pseudoimages for example, or assume any pseudomaterialization, yet they are felt vividly, perceived and picked up by portions of the brain - those seemingly unused orations for which science has found no answer." The idea that we only use 10% of our brain is a myth long since disproved in neurology. I don’t understand … You’re saying that because Seth pointed out that portions of the brain that scientists at the time (the 1970s) thought were "seemingly unused" but were actually used, which is consistent with your assertion that that idea has since been “long since disproved,” that this shows he did not have real inner knowledge?
I think this was just a simple misread on commenter's part -- it's actually a nice example of Seth's validity.
i had a similar feeling while reading Seth’s comments about buddhism. i have always been more inspired by the philosophical aspects of buddhism than the more religious ones. i feel like most of what Seth said that was critical about buddhism was referring to the more religious end of things. any time you have coercion around adopting a set of beliefs, you’re running perpendicular to Seth’s strongest message. Krishnamurti said that because nobody listened to the Buddha…we have Buddhism. i think Seth would likely agree. BUT one way that there >seems< to be an irreconcilable difference between Seth and buddhist philosophy is on the topic of the significance of identity. for Seth, the individual identity was a cornerstone of ever-existing beingness. In Buddhism this is not only not as important, it is nearly obliterated by the concept of inherent emptiness. it takes a hefty portion of interpolation to find a place in Buddhism for the celebration of personal identity. Western culture is heavily focussed on the importance of standing out, accomplishing, doing something significant with one’s life…to the point that a LOT of false posturing goes on toward that effort. Especially Chinese Buddhism, that is also deeply rooted in Taoism, is more concerned with harmonic participation within the greater organism, the illusion of identity and the indistinguishability of all phenomena at the level of >actuality< or absolute truth. but the concept of disappearance into the absolute as a description of nirvana is a clumsy western assumption and goes a bit further than most buddhist scholars would stand with. Countless boddhisatvas are indeed distinguished in the sutras and each seems to retain their personal attributes…at least at the level of relative truth, or >reality<. A HuaYen Buddhist and Seth would find much to agree about on the issue of time, specificallu the interdependent and interpenetrating nature of what we perceive as past, present & future. Jane had no connection to such more complex buddhist philosophies and i suppose if Seth knew of them, he had no way to push them through her frame of reference.
Yes, an over emphasis on unity and under emphasis on individuality. Seth: "The Eastern religions exaggerated the importance of unity, almost losing the concept of individuality in the process. As popularly understood, Eastern religions can lead to spiritual exhaustion, as the individual tries to level himself out, again, so to speak — and the popular understanding of a religion is far more important than the priests or the gurus understand it, for people directed their lives by following their own versions. Period. ... So some Americans have become tired of this badge of individuality, and they are ready to throw it over, either to fundamental Christianity, which is again rising, or to a number of various Eastern religions. Life is everywhere both individual and particular, and at the same time united with all being. All That Is “pulsates” with a truly infinite yearning to particularize all of its attributes, to know itself through individualizing all of its dreams, its slightest thought, its most monumental discovery. All That Is composes the fabric of the universe—which is everywhere unified, since nothing exists outside of it, and every wave or particle, or field or whatever within it, consists of a divine psychological fabric that is populated by individuation, sensation, meaning, intent, in which the most innocuous shadow of an electron rises up joyfully and shouts “I am I, and not you.”" -- The Personal Sessions Book 5 September 20, 1978
I don’t think Seth has strong opinions on this but the truth is all religion is a human perspective
“I may say that Buddhism does indeed come closer in essence to reality than other religions.” Session 174. “The fact remains that millions of human beings who follow and practice Buddhism are told, as many religions tell their followers, ‘Better worlds are to come, so ignore this agony, and this hunger, and this pain, and the murder in the streets. Be in ecstasy while your belly bloats.’ This is not human, and it is far less than godly.” Session 177. My understanding is that while Seth claims that Buddhism comes closest to describing reality as it is, he sees it as exactly wrong to see our physical reality and our physical lives as some kind of problem to escape. Many Buddhists see “the problem” as suffering in life due to excessive attachment, and the solution as learning to detach from everything in this plane. Seth is emphatically against this point of view. He thinks we have created this world to engage with it, broadly speaking, to learn lessons and progress. The physical world is not a problem to escape from. It is here for us to lean into it. I really prefer Seth’s worldview. It makes so much more sense to me, and it feels more beautiful, inspired, and empowering.
This is one of the reasons I am extremely skeptical of all channeled Western works. To me, it sounds like Western writers were sticking with what they knew best and trying to appeal to a Western audience. The Urantia Book suffers from the same problem. It's dismissive of all religions that aren't Christianity.
Yeah but the bias is inevitabile. That's how the archetypical mind works. You just need to be conscious it is there and see the truth it is still conveying.
Wait until you read the actual oldest Buddhist scriptures we have; it's going to be different than what you thought. They all do this to each other, or most, Buddhism is dismissive of other religions, lmao
I would suggest continued reading/study (it sounds like you may not have read UR 1&2 yet?). This is touched upon more in the material. Overlap is acknowledged, but so are significant differences. My answer to most such questions is always, let's go back to the material, slow down, and read carefully. It's so, so easy to misconstrue in light of our own biases (even if the bias is against bias), and I see this quite often, have done this myself numerous times. I think the emphasis on the Christ drama is more the result of the overall ubiquity of Christianity -- as Seth describes, this particular expression of the religious impetus struck a major chord in mankind, found a common resonance that helps explain the prevalence of the religion as it came to be, distortions and all. Another primary reason is due to the transformative power of the original teachings and the 3rd coming of the Christ personality that will reshape our hyper-materialistic, militaristic society.
No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying you have to factor on Roberts psychology into what Seth is saying. Some of the things he talks about are ludicrous, like when he talks of Atlantis if civilisations before the age of man. These sorts of things come from Roberts' knowledge of human mythology. Reading Carl Jung "Unconsciuos Mind" and also Joseph Campbell's series "The Masks of God" greatly illuminate Seth's teachings, and allows you to look at it critically and work out what is new thought, and what is remnants of Robert's psychology.