3 results for (book:ss AND heading:introduct AND stemmed:actual)
As Rob’s notes show, I often have other kinds of experiences, also, while speaking for Seth. Sometimes, for instance, I see inner visions. These may illustrate what Seth is saying, so that I am receiving information in two ways, or they may be completely separate from the script. I’ve had several “out-of-body” experiences also during sessions, when I saw events actually happening some thousands of miles away.
Rob and I don’t refer to Seth as a spirit; we dislike the connotations of the term. Actually what we object to is the conventional idea of a spirit, which is an extension of quite limited ideas of human personality, only projected more or less intact into an afterlife. You can say that Seth is a dramatization of the unconscious or an independent personality. Personally, I don’t see why the statements have to be contradictory. Seth may be a dramatization playing a very real role — explaining his greater reality in the only terms we can understand. This is my opinion at this time.
First of all, to me the term “unconscious” is a poor one, barely hinting at an actual open psychic system, with deep intertwining roots uniting all kinds of consciousness; a network in which we are all connected. Our individuality rises out of it, but also helps form it. This source contains past, present, and future information; only the ego experiencing time as we know it. I also believe that this open system contains other kinds of consciousness beside our own.
[...] Actually, Seth’s own book contained so many ideas for future sessions that our problem would be what to explore first — and we would have the unaccustomed opportunity to carry out these studies at our leisure.
Symbolically, however, the crucifixion idea itself embodied deep dilemmas and meanings of the human psyche, and so the Crucifixion per se became a far greater reality than the actual physical events that occurred at the time.