Talk:Jane Roberts/Archive 1

message: Archival note:  Frequent top-posting on Talk:Jane Roberts left the order of threads in a mess.  Lacking the patience to refactor 164kb, I just picked a point in the middle and archived everything above it.  The result is that this  Archive 1 contains threads begun from 2003 through, July 2006, with some exceptions.  If someone wants to undo my work and refactor the whole thing properly, feel free. JamesMLane t c 08:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

message: "The Seth books are arguably one of the most original and profound series of books about reality ever written."
from the first paragraph. It doesn't seem NPOV to me. Andrewa 09:31, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: There is a very interesting chapter in one seth-book I have been reading a few years ago. The German title was "Von der ewigen Gültigkeit der Seele". In this book he said that Jesus has not been nailed to the cross but another man, who suffered from insanity, not because he wanted to fullfill the jewish prophecy.
Indeed so. In this hardly insignificant detail, the Seth books are awkwardly incompatible with 'A Course In Miracles' (to which comparison is often made): 'Seth' claims that Jesus was not really crucified, while the 'Jesus ' of A Course In Miracles several times explicitly mentions 'His' experience of being crucified and the true significance of this historical event. They can't both be right...
A serious student of A Course in Miracles understands that the Course's words don't always mean what they say literally and really should not be taken that way. The Course should be taken metaphorically  and the content behind the form has to be understood. The Course is not a newspaper and shouldn't be read that way.  In fact, the Course's language is the biggest problem for most of its students. The Course is in no way scientific and is often poetic. It often refers to God having arms, hands, tears, and a Voice and doing very human things but the Course's content teaches something quite different: that He does not have a body and does not even know about us at all. Indeed, the Course is written on two very distinct levels: One of non-duality and the other of duality. The Jesus of the Course is not the Jesus of the Gospels: he does nothing in this world because this world does not exist, yet like Seth he does not deny this world. Jesus in the Course is language that we can accept and understand and that language is often the metaphoric language of myth, thus when he speaks of the Crucifiction he is NOT talking about a historical event. The form of the Course is often inconsistent but the content always is. So, yes, Seth may be quite correct about the historical Jesus. Who knows? For speculation is inhabiting the world of myth and myth is not literal.  
What Seth actually 'says' (about the 'substitute')is:
"The 'substitute' was a personality SEEMINGLY deluded, but in his DELUSION he knew that each person is resurrected.  He took it upon himself to become the symbol of this knowledge.... The man CALLED Christ was not crucified.  In the overall drama however it made little difference what was FACT, in your terms, and what was not--for the greater reality transcends facts and creates them."  [Session 674].
In her book Psychic Politics, Roberts discusses apparent discrepancies among psychics and their information.  Her idea was that the material was interpreted according to the talents and beliefs of the individual receiving, and this included her own material.
Contradictions.
I believe an interpersonal look at the Seth work will show as it did to me, that the blatant contradictions present in the works, even having been noted by Robert Butts and Jane Roberts herself, are the product of taking Seth's assumptions; that all realities are possible and occurring along side ours in all possible "directions", stem from not considering that you can not say for sure that Seth has not taken his information from multiple realities, being that "he", as he says has access to all the possible scenarios. He doesn't mention though whether he may be misplacing where or from what strand of "reality" the information comes from. It then leaves the possibility that the material though often contradictory can be "channeled" or "remembered" from separate strands of reality.
The information is all very coincidental to Jane and Robert's situation at the time. All be it, Seth explains that All That Is, is pre-agreed upon. I can't say pre-destined because he/she makes it clear that it is not the case. Yet he says several times that reality is the product of all consciousness agreeing on what to label reality as.
A reader looking to Seth for answers is just as likely to find them lying drunk on the floor of some bathroom. One could also find them in almost any religious scripture from nearly any earthborn culture, as long as you ignore the labels these texts use. I believe you can derive the same benefit from Seth that you could from these other works if you ignore anything that seems related to actual history. In any religious manuscript the lessons are what people should focus on. The details of how one comes to illustrate these lessons are harmful.
I found the Seth 2, "channeling" to be the most beneficial. Short and sweet and to the point. ie: there is no point.
In the book "Seth Speaks", Seth described the Christ as a powerful psychic, a gifted individual capable of changing the course of world-events by his mere presence. In the same book, Seth maintained that when mankind is in great need, we (humankind), a gestalt consciousness en-masse, will bring forth from an individual such as Christ to help us with our world-problems. In biblical terms, Christ is stated as being the Son of Man, and also as the Son of God. Seth had stated that Christ had appeared before in our physical reality many times, and that Christ would also return but would not be known. Biblically, it is stated that Christ would return as a "thief in the night".
--Cheliro 22:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus

message: Redbongooze, I feel a little uncomfortable with your addition about Christ.  It's not my recollection that Seth made a specific prediction about the discovery of the Gospel of Judas.  If I am remembering incorrectly, please tell me where in the Material Seth says that.  Also, if we are going to mention Seth's teachings on Christ, it seems to me that there are other more important things that should be mentioned.--Caleb Murdock 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Addition

message: Yes, a bit tacky; a subsection using the title of one of Jane Roberts' books. I added the question mark.
So.... in the book that I bought on Friday, called Psychic Politics by Jane Roberts, I found many interesting quotes. Here is one from the editors of her book, re-published in the year 2000. Its pretty good: "... [Jane] refused to accept the "official" explanations of her experiences that both science and religion offered. Instead, Roberts spent her life searching for her own answers to the phenomenon of Seth and to her psychic abilities and experiences. She risked ridicule and asked questions. The conclusions she came to are, today, as relevant to our search for an understanding of consciousness as they were twenty years ago." (p vii, Psychic Politics, Roberts, 1976 [2000]).
So may i cite what i think is one of her conclusions about her abilities? I'll just let the above quote settle for a bit due to the fact that my posts are quite long. Read, interpret, feel, think, say more.... Go for it guys. Drakonicon 14:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The God of Jane?