|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Seth aka Jane Roberts
SETH: Animals have a sense of justice that you do not understand, and built-in to that innocent sense of integrity there is a biological compassion, understood at the deepest cellular levels. In your terms man is an animal, rising out of himself, from himself evolving certain animal capacities to their utmost; not forming new physical specialisations of body any longer (again in your terms), but creating from his needs, desires and blessed natural aggressiveness inner structures having to do with values, space and time. To varying degrees this same impetus resides throughout all creature-hood. Such a task meant that man must break out of the self-regulating, precise, safe and yet limiting aspects of instinct. The birth of a conscious mind, as think of it, meant that the species took upon itself free will. Built-in procedures that had beautifully sufficed could now be superseded. They became suggestions instead of rules. Compassion ‘rose’ from the biological structure up to emotional reality. The ‘new’ consciousness accepted its emerging triumph – freedom – and was faced with responsibility for action of a conscious level, and with the birth of guilt. A cat playfully killing a mouse and eating it is not evil. It suffers no guilt. On biological levels both animals understand. The consciousness of the mouse, under the innate knowledge of impending pain, leaves its body. The cat uses the warm flesh. The mouse itself has been hunter as well as prey, and both understand the terms in ways that are very difficult to explain. (As Seth-Jane delivered this material, my mind flashed back many years to a summer day when I was about eleven years old. With my two brothers 1 sat in the back yard of the house in which we grew up, in a small town not far from Elmira. Our next-door neighbour’s cat, Mitzi, had caught a field mouse. She played with it in the grass; with conflicting feelings I watched Mitzi, of whom I was very fond, block off each attempt of the terrified mouse to escape – until finally, having had her sport, she ate it. At certain levels both cat and mouse understand the nature of the life energy they share, and are not – in those terms – jealous for their own individuality’. RESPONDENT: To me the above is far closer to Richard’s natural amoral stance. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding: Richard does not have a ‘natural amoral stance’ at all. First and foremost: nothing is a ‘stance’ (or a philosophy or a metaphysics or a thesis and so on) as, unlike Ms. Jane Roberts, all that I write is a description which comes out of my direct and spontaneous experiencing at this moment in time ... my words are an ‘after the event’ report, as it were. Second: there is nothing ‘natural’ in what I did in regards the elimination of the instinctual passions and the animal self in the ‘lizard brain’ ... it was a very, very unnatural thing to do (it is fear and aggression and nurture and desire which are natural). Third: to be ‘amoral’ is when a person can totally and reliably be capable of spontaneously interacting in the world of people, things and events, in a way that is neither personally insalubrious nor socially reprehensible, at all times and under any circumstance without exception. The $64,000 question then appears to be this: Did the wisdom of a bodiless spirit called ‘Seth’ (an aspect of ‘God’ by whatever name) bestow such a remarkable freedom upon Ms. Jane Roberts as amorality indubitably is? And further: how has anyone benefited from a wisdom that promotes a ‘blessed natural aggressiveness’ by equating what a cat does with a mouse as being ‘playfully killing’ and thus ‘that innocent sense of integrity’ and ‘sense of justice’ wherein there is a ‘biological compassion’ because (and this is the central argument) the ‘consciousness of the mouse’ (and a ‘terrified mouse’ at that) ‘leaves its body’ via an ‘innate knowledge of impending pain’ as being a ‘‘new’ consciousness’ by virtue of the ‘emerging triumph’ known as ‘free will’ whereupon all these instinctual impulses are somehow ‘superseded’ by an ‘emotional reality’ induced by ‘the birth of guilt’ wherein committing all the aforementioned mayhem and misery is now felt as being a ‘suggestion’ to live by rather than a ‘rule’ ... and gratuitously called ‘freedom’? This inhumane ‘suggestion’ (condoning and/or advocating the inducing of terror in another) and gruesome ‘‘new’ consciousness’ (condoning and/or advocating homicide as it is the body and not the consciousness which is killed) is identical to that divine wisdom found in the Bhagavad-Gita where Mr. Krishna (‘God’ by whatever name) assures Mr. Arjuna that it is quite okay to kill his relatives in war because (a) it is his duty by virtue of the caste he was born into ... and (b) he would not be killing the person anyway but only the body. May I ask? How do you see this as being even remotely close to what Richard experiences and thus promulgates? RESPONDENT: We have slightly different semantic interpretations ... RICHARD: Okay ... perhaps you may be inclined to explain to me how the following points are but ‘slightly different’ meanings or connotations applied to words (‘semantic interpretations’): 1. Richard speaks from his direct moment-to-moment experience (he lives what he writes); Ms. Jane Roberts spoke from a disembodied spirit (she did not live what she wrote). Ergo, Ms. Jane Roberts has a ‘stance’; Richard lives an actuality.
2. Richard did something very, very unnatural ... resulting in peace-on-earth becoming apparent; Ms. Jane Roberts did something supernatural ... resulting in further addling the minds of otherwise intelligent peoples so that peace on earth is nowhere to be found.
3. Richard is easily amoral in that he can totally and reliably be capable of spontaneously interacting in the world of people, things and events, in a way that is neither personally insalubrious nor socially reprehensible, at all times and under any circumstance without exception because he has eliminated the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) that form the animal self which is the root cause of all the misery and mayhem; Ms. Jane Roberts channelled a wisdom that promotes a ‘blessed natural aggressiveness’, by equating what a cat does with a mouse as being ‘playfully killing’ and thus ‘that innocent sense of integrity’ and ‘sense of justice’ wherein there is a ‘biological compassion’ because (and this is the central argument) the ‘consciousness of the mouse’ (and a ‘terrified mouse’ at that) ‘leaves its body’ via an ‘innate knowledge of impending pain’, as being a ‘‘new’ consciousness’ by virtue of the ‘emerging triumph’ known as ‘free will’ whereupon all these instinctual impulses are somehow ‘superseded’ by an ‘emotional reality’ induced by ‘the birth of guilt’ wherein committing all the aforementioned mayhem and misery is now felt as being a ‘suggestion’ to live by rather than a ‘rule’ ... and gratuitously called ‘freedom’.
4. No. 10 says that what Ms. Jane Roberts published (above) is ‘closer to Richard’s natural amoral stance’ than what Peter wrote; Richard says ‘How do you see this [Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit] as being even remotely close to what Richard experiences and thus promulgates?’ ... to which detailed reply No. 10 says: ‘The Wisdom Of A Not So Bodiless Spirit’. Yet the spirit called ‘Seth’ (an aspect of ‘God’ by whatever name) clearly says [quote]: ‘if your definition of that word (‘spirit’) implies the idea of a personality without a physical body, then I would have to agree that the description fits me’ [endquote]. (page 4; ‘Seth Speaks’; © 1972 by Jane Roberts; published by Bantam Books NY, NY).
RESPONDENT: Richard, this is my reply to your original post entitled: The Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit ... RICHARD: Ahh ... good. Because in my original post I asked one very simple question (‘how do you see this as being even remotely close to what Richard experiences and thus promulgates?’) and this one very simple question only ... which you did not address at all in your response (which is why I asked it again in my last post). RESPONDENT: ... which I then retitled: The Wisdom Of A Not So Bodiless Spirit, after explaining why ... RICHARD: Well ... no, you did not explain why at all in your post entitled ‘The Wisdom Of A Not So Bodiless Spirit’ (message No. 1210 in the archives). The main thrust of that post was that my description of how Richard experiences life, as contrasted to your description of how Richard experiences life, was but a matter of ‘slightly different semantic interpretations’. Nowhere, but nowhere, in the your post entitled ‘The Wisdom Of A Not So Bodiless Spirit’ did you explain why you know better, than what the spirit called ‘Seth’ knows, as in regards the issue of the spirit called ‘Seth’ being bodiless or ‘not so bodiless’ ... even though the spirit called ‘Seth’ clearly says [quote]: ‘if your definition of that word (‘spirit’) implies the idea of a personality without a physical body, then I would have to agree that the description fits me’ [endquote]. (page 4; ‘Seth Speaks’; © 1972 by Jane Roberts; published by Bantam Books NY, NY). RESPONDENT: ... but you dismissed that explanation and returned the title to your original: The Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit. LOL. Quite a body of Merry-Go-Rounds. RICHARD: Even if there were an explanation to dismiss (which there was not) it was the verbatim, transcribed, and officially notated words of the spirit called ‘Seth’ (an aspect of ‘God’ by whatever name) that dismisses your notion that the spirit called ‘Seth’ is ‘not so bodiless’ ... I simply copied and pasted it from page 4 of ‘Seth Speaks’. (© 1972 by Jane Roberts; published by Bantam Books NY, NY). Would it help to get past this impasse if I were to post some more of the verbatim, transcribed, and officially notated words of the spirit called ‘Seth’ (an aspect of ‘God’ by whatever name)? Viz.:
Speaking personally, I find the word ‘non-physical’ to be quite unambiguous ... let alone all the other references. I only had to go as far as page nineteen to gain these unequivocal statements ... and there are 486 pages all told. * RESPONDENT: We have slightly different semantic interpretations ... RICHARD: Okay ... perhaps you may be inclined to explain to me how the following points are but ‘slightly different’ meanings or connotations applied to words (‘semantic interpretations’). RESPONDENT: Patience Richard patience. I reiterate, ‘but nothing that can’t be clarified in the fullness of time and by reading each others posts sensibly’. RICHARD: I did, as always, read your post sensibly. As a consequence I sensibly address the following sensible points in sensible detail and would be most sensibly interested to read your sensible response to having read them sensibly:
If you could see your way clear to give your considered response then maybe we can go more deeply into why
you considered the wisdom of a bodiless entity to be even remotely close to what Richard experiences and thus promulgates.
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
