channelling

[Internal Queries]

so anyone here ever read Jane Robert's "Seth"? Jane was brilliant but i found it rather sad that she felt compelled to manifest a male personality in order to convey her genius.

[Adrienne]

Internal Queries,

I haven't read " Seth " but I am curious about your statement that
"she felt compelled to manifest a male personality in order to convey her genius.".

Did she say this ? or maybe a male personality just showed up and a female one didn't - just luck of the draw so to speak ?

Dream Angel xx

[Internal Queries]

Originally Posted by Dream Angel

Internal Queries,

I haven't read " Seth " but I am curious about your statement that
"she felt compelled to manifest a male personality in order to convey her genius.".

Did she say this ? or maybe a male personality just showed up and a female one didn't - just luck of the draw so to speak ?

Dream Angel xx

well, the reason i say this is because i don't believe that channellers are channelling for separate entities but are channelling some portion of their own minds/ the combined consciousness. IMO "Seth" was a creation of HER mind ... not the other way around.

Jane was product of our male dominated society and perhaps subconsciously she felt that the complex and innovative ideas she was conveying would be better accepted if they were coming from a male entity.

Jane began channelling for "Seth" in 1964 and was the forerunner of today's new age movement. she was ahead of her time and her amazing concepts are today being confirmed by quantum physicists. i just feel that SHE should the credit ... not "Seth".

[Adrienne]

oh I see, thank you for explaining that to me. I should probably read those books sometime, they are mentioned quite often.

Dream Angel xx

Originally Posted by Internal Queries

so anyone here ever read Jane Robert's "Seth"?

Yep

Originally Posted by Internal Queries

Jane was brilliant but i found it rather sad that she felt compelled to manifest a male personality in order to convey her genius.

I unlike you don't believe she was lying or making up a "personality".. I believe she was channeling higher knowledge.. something that's been done by many people..

I think validating peoples truths is the universal theory to understanding the world!

You could tell me you channel "Davey Jones" and I'd validate your truth.. I think if you looked at the world from a validation viewpoint and less a "there are liars" viewpoint you might get closer to a truth of understanding allthatis

[Internal Queries]

Originally Posted by themaster

YepI unlike you don't believe she was lying or making up a "personality".. I believe she was channeling higher knowledge.. something that's been done by many people..

I think validating peoples truths is the universal theory to understanding the world!

You could tell me you channel "Davey Jones" and I'd validate your truth.. I think if you looked at the world from a validation viewpoint and less a "there are liars" viewpoint you might get closer to a truth of understanding allthatis

you misunderstand. i did not say that Jane was "lying" or "making up" a personality. i said she CREATED a personality, a MALE personality through which she could confidently convey the higher knowledge to which she had found access. for all her brilliance Jane would be a product of her era, an era in which male domination was still crushingly heavy and even she may have felt herself unworthy and incapable of the genius that was emerging from her skull. so she created "Seth", an aspect herself who was male and who therefore was allowed to be a genius, who had the authority to impart to the world Jane's amazing concepts. i do not wish to imply that Jane was deliberately tricking people. only that she created "Seth" out of her subconscious as a survival mechanism and a megaphone.

PS. do me a favor. don't validate my concepts if you believe them to be **. i prefer honesty to new-agey- airy-fairy-respect-every-rediculous-notion "validation". i'd rather debate the merits of my ideas and theories with you than receive your condescension.

Originally Posted by Internal Queries

you misunderstand. i did not say that Jane was "lying" or "making up" a personality. i said she CREATED a personality, a MALE personality through which she could confidently convey the higher knowledge to which she had found access. for all her brilliance Jane would be a product of her era, an era in which male domination was still crushingly heavy and even she may have felt herself unworthy and incapable of the genius that was emerging from her skull. so she created "Seth", an aspect herself who was male and who therefore was allowed to be a genius, who had the authority to impart to the world Jane's amazing concepts. i do not wish to imply that Jane was deliberately tricking people. only that she created "Seth" out of her subconscious as a survival mechanism and a megaphone.

PS. do me a favor. don't validate my concepts if you believe them to be **. i prefer honesty to new-agey- airy-fairy-respect-every-rediculous-notion "validation". i'd rather debate the merits of my ideas and theories with you than receive your condescension.

When I channel, the conciousness can feel male or female - its not sexed, its just part of the metaphoric 'feeling'. I write stories and the characters I recognise as myself may be either male ot female. So it may not be that she chose the sex, but that she channelled the predominanty energy of the time. There are many possibilities...it seems a bit pressumptiousness to say it was a shame she did it for this or that reason.

Originally Posted by Internal Queries

i said she CREATED a personality

In a way this is a statement of invalidation.. a statement of judgment.. lying just as I said.. that's the way I see it

We have roles here we call females and males.. but we are the same energy, same people.. and the configuration of male/female is also ending..

From a realistic approach you do have to wonder why what she was channeled identified as "male" just as ramtha's channel was also "male" now that I think of it.. many of the better channels today do not identify sex.. and I think if pushed you'd find many now say we do not have those roles.. those are human roles.. I also think "heather" brings some interesting information on this..

Originally Posted by Internal Queries

PS. do me a favor. don't validate my concepts if you believe them to be **. i prefer honesty to new-agey- airy-fairy-respect-every-rediculous-notion "validation". i'd rather debate the merits of my ideas and theories with you than receive your condescension.

It is you who feels "condescension" not me.. for I have approached this conversation with you as a equal.. I still feel that referring to it as "creation" is still saying "liar" but I understand your perspective better now

[Internal Queries]

Originally Posted by xxheatherxx

When I channel, the conciousness can feel male or female - its not sexed, its just part of the metaphoric 'feeling'. I write stories and the characters I recognise as myself may be either male ot female. So it may not be that she chose the sex, but that she channelled the predominanty energy of the time. There are many possibilities...it seems a bit pressumptiousness to say it was a shame she did it for this or that reason.

i'm taking into consideration the environment of her era and the psychology her era created. yes exactly ... she channelled the preDOMINANT energies of the time and i consider it a sadly poignant because Jane was exceptional in her innovative and intuitive intelligence but she needed to create a male aspect in order to reveal it. she couldn't just be herself. she had to be someone else.

i respect Jane. i have nothing but admiration for her. HER concepts on the nature of reality went waaaaaaaay beyond anything previously offered. SHE was a genius.

[Internal Queries]

Originally Posted by themaster

In a way this is a statement of invalidation.. a statement of judgment.. lying just as I said.. that's the way I see it

We have roles here we call females and males.. but we are the same energy, same people.. and the configuration of male/female is also ending..

From a realistic approach you do have to wonder why what she was channeled identified as "male" just as ramtha's channel was also "male" now that I think of it.. many of the better channels today do not identify sex.. and I think if pushed you'd find many now say we do not have those roles.. those are human roles.. I also think "heather" brings some interesting information on this.. It is you who feels "condescension" not me.. for I have approached this conversation with you as a equal.. I still feel that referring to it as "creation" is still saying "liar" but I understand your perspective better now

i'm not clear on why you would consider it "lying" if/when someone feels subconsciously compelled to create a character aspect. are we not all carrying multiple aspects of ouselves? are we not all character aspects of THE Self? are we each a lie?

PS. i didn't say i feel "condescension" from you. i only asked that you not condescend by "validating" my concepts, theories and ideas if you, in fact, felt they were **. thus far, you haven't "validated" me at all so thank you for your honesty.