My intent is to reveal the “connective tissue” between the two teachings and build a conceptual bridge that shows the similarities far outweigh the apparent differences. But, before we dive into the similarities and differences, I’d like to set the stage with some background information including a brief overview on the relationship between channeling, the inner senses, and the nature of belief systems.

Let’s begin with Jane Roberts, who lived in Elmira, NY and channeled an entity named Seth – the self-described “energy personality essence” no longer focused in physical reality – from 1963 until her passing in 1984. Along with the tireless efforts of her husband, Robert F. Butts, they published over thirty-five books of philosophy, fiction, and poetry. Nine of those books were dictated in finished form, without any significant editing, directly by Seth. A tenth book – The Magical Approach – is a compilation of Seth sessions published posthumously.

In addition, there is a more recent set of books, called The Early Sessions, in which most of the Seth material that preceded the first dictated book – Seth Speaks – was published. The remainder, scheduled for publication, are called The Personal Sessions. After that, The ESP Class Sessions are scheduled for publication. When completed, all of the 1,800-plus Seth sessions will be available in print for the first time.

By contrast, in late April, 1995, Elias – another self-described “energy personality essence” – first spoke through Mary Ennis. The sessions have been, with the exception of a number of private sessions, videotaped and transcribed since session 8. There are now over one thousand transcripts that have been published on this Internet website and over fourteen hundred sessions recorded to date.

Both of these bodies of work are the result of what is conventionally termed “channeling,” a phenomenon in which the host enters an altered state and allows another personality, called a source, to come through and speak. When the source is finished, it “leaves” and the host personality “returns.” In both cases, Seth/Jane and Elias/Mary, the hosts have little or no memory of what transpired and need to review a session transcript or tape in order to learn what was discussed.

The average person knows very little about this phenomenon. When you bring up the topic of channeling the stereotypical frameworks that many still believe in include demonic possession, a religious frenzy or “speaking in tongues” called glossolalia or dissociative personality disorders like schizophrenia. All of the preceding conditions immediately trigger a fear reaction because our officially accepted reality, in terms of mainstream science and organized religion, don’t yet have adequate explanations for this phenomenon.

Rob Butts, Jane Roberts, and Seth each said that the term “channeling” was inadequate to explain the rich multidimensional relationships between their own psychological experiences. Rob says, “I don’t care for the term ‘channeling,’ since I think it too all inclusive and already trite.” (1)

Jane had this to say about her relationship with Seth in the introduction to The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events:

“As far as my relationship with Seth and his with me, because of our long-standing association I think we must have formed a unique psychological alliance; somehow I am part Seth, and in sessions at least, Seth must be part Jane, in a kind of psychological bonding on both sides. Seth must use my voice to speak and my life as reference, and certainly the contents of my mind are vastly expanded as a result of the sessions. My daily life is lived with the knowledge of that association, of course, and my normal routine now includes ‘turning into Seth’ twice weekly, and has for years.

“This Introduction represents my only conscious contribution to this entire book, for example. But certainly as Seth often states, even the unconscious portions of our personalities are actually conscious. It’s all a matter of focus. Not that Seth is just another focus of mine, for it’s quite legitimate to say that I’m a focus of his consciousness in that same context; but that Seth represents that larger portion of the psyche from which our own kind of consciousness emerges. The point of all of this is the exploration of human consciousness, its ranges and scopes. How much does it change as it approaches other levels of actuality?

“But however we attempt to define Seth’s reality, I’m convinced of one thing by now: He is delivering to our conscious minds our deepest unconscious knowledge about ourselves, the world, the universe, and the source of Being Itself. Not that Seth claims any kind of omnipotence, because he doesn’t. His material, however, is clearly providing such translations of unconscious knowledge, and intuitive disclosures; disclosures, according to Seth, no more remarkable than those available in nature itself, but we have forgotten how to read nature’s messages; disclosures no more mysterious than those available in our own states of inspiration, but we’ve forgotten how to decipher those communications too. Instead, many people are even frightened of inspiration itself.

“I think that such phenomena were important in evolutionary terms, helping to shape man’s consciousness. Not that such material wasn’t often distorted, or just as often discounted: In any case, it would have to be interpreted again and again so that it applied to the species’ experience in time’s framework.” (2)

Seth stated that he was related within consciousness to Jane and Rob in a manner that defies our conventional psychological explanations. According to Seth, the human psyche is multidimensional by nature; a source personality capable of manifesting multiple selves in simultaneous time frameworks. So within that definition just what, then, is Seth? Seth states that his native reality is elsewhere in what he termed another “framework of consciousness.” Seth describes himself as a “bridge personality” that is the result of a mergence of his and Jane’s consciousness:

“In regular sessions, as now, [she] and I again both make adjustments, and so in session I am what I call a bridge personality, composed of a composite self – [Jane] and I meeting and merging to form a personality that is not truly either of us, but a new one that exists between dimensions. Beyond that is my real identity.” (3)

Seth and Elias each say that their own source reality is nonphysical, “outside” of space and time. If this is true, then it means that the psyche is by nature independent of space and time, with death being a new beginning and not an end. According to mainstream psychological belief systems this view is delusional, the result of an ego – our primary waking identity – who fears its inevitable death and ultimate annihilation. In other words, reality is created only in the brain through the five physical senses. When the brain dies, so does the ego. Period.

Yet according to Seth and Elias, we each have inner senses – a form of deep intuition – that allows us to empathically and conceptually experience inner reality. We use these in addition to our physical senses to create everything we know in physical reality. Similarly, these inner senses are the means by which the mystics of the ages have been able to transcend the domain of five-senses-only perception and directly perceive the hidden, source domains from which we all spring. And by implication, the inner senses also make channeling phenomenon possible.

The contemporary branch of psychology – transpersonal psychology – aligns with these multidimensional views. Founded in the 1960’s by Robert Assagioli and Stanislav Grof, and continued by contemporaries Abraham Maslow, James Fadiman, Michael Murphy, Arthur Hastings, Jon Klimo, Ken Wilber, Michael Washburn, and many others, the word transpersonal hints at the multidimensional nature of consciousness.

Beginning in 1983, Wilber’s innovative work evolved into an integral psychology that has taken this field to the next stage of holonic (4) and transformative thinking. Together, integral and transpersonal psychology acknowledge that consciousness, however elusive to define in concrete terms, is the primary causal agent in our universe. In other words, our consciousness literally creates all energy-matter and space-time. And consciousness is not limited to those four dimensions, nor to the five physical senses, but is multidimensionally nested within a vast, holonic, Universal Mind.

Jane Roberts’s experiences with the Seth phenomenon paralleled the birth of the transpersonal movement in the mid-1960’s. Jane went on to publish her own theories that she called Aspect Psychology in which she closely examined and interpreted her subjective experiences. (5) She did this out of necessity because the models promoted by mainstream psychology and religion at the time were too limited and incomplete for her to make sense of her psychic experiences, of which the Seth phenomenon was only one very important part. Jane also autotyped entire books, experimented with out-of-body projections, healing energies, multiple focus, and more. All of these experience were made possible by learning to consciously use her inner senses.

The Seth material is considered by many, myself included, to be one of the richest and most useful sources of perennial ideas produced during the past forty years, with over seven and a half million books sold worldwide. With such a grass roots following, it is a challenge to build a case for another source of channeled information that not only expands upon the foundation laid by Seth, but expands it to the next, more subtle, level of understanding. And yet that is precisely what I hope to accomplish in this essay.

New ideas, however, are often met with an initial resistance to maintain the status quo. This is a normal process observable throughout history. And yet change appears to be one of the constants in our physical experience. Nothing stays the same.

Thomas Kuhn wrote an influential book in 1970 called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions where he showed how scientific theories and models, called paradigms, often become accepted as science fact, prohibiting new, contradictory paradigms from taking hold. The result is scientism, not science.

The same concepts apply to the perennial ideas contained in the writings of Seth, Elias, Buddha, Mohammed, Christ, and Include-Your-Favorite-Expert-Here. Though not a science locked in the chains of five-senses-only perception, there is still an area of agreed upon jargon – the actual words used to describe key ideas in the perennial philosophy. (6) And when we take the ideas as facts, when we forget that the Seth material is only a contemporary translation of the perennial philosophy, the result is Sethism or Eliasism – dogmatic beliefs about the truths that change with experience.

What we are exploring here is called epistemology – a fancy word used by philosophers to understand how we know what we know and decide what the rules of evidence are to substantiate what we know. In the physical sciences, we are constrained by a particular set of belief systems relating to five-senses-only perception and objective reality. In post-metaphysics, which is based upon our direct experience of nonphysical reality, not merely intellectual speculation about what Seth, Elias, or Hawking “says,” we include subjective perception, including inner senses and extrasensory perception. (7) This opens the flood gates to new ways of mapping psychological reality, both inner and outer. Buddhist traditions call this wisdom awareness. The shamanic tradition in Carlos Castañeda’s books call it second attention. Elias calls it engaging periphery. I use the term hyperception. All deal with the same thing: conscious use of the inner senses to complement and enhance the physical senses. That is, an integral mix of subjective and objective, intuitive and intellectual cognition.

Hyperception is derived from the word “hyperspace,” a word originating in mid-nineteenth century science fiction to describe a fictional space containing more than three dimensions that allowed for extraordinary events, such as faster than light travel. More recently hyperspace has been used by quantum physicists to describe theoretical multidimensional space-time frameworks. Most of us are familiar, for example, with television’s Starship Enterprise as it engages its warp engines, enters hyperspace, and exits in another quadrant of the galaxy millions of light years away. According to every perennial tradition, our conscious minds can be trained to do this, too.

Hyperception describes the wide spectrum of subjective perception that results from consciously transcending the limits of space and time. Still, altered states engaging hyperception are, for the vast majority of the population, only temporary states. Afterward, we usually return to our primary neurological focus that relies upon belief systems to interpret and translate our experiences into meaningful and practical terms. So we are constrained by our belief systems, since by definition any belief is a self-imposed limitation.

In other words, a belief about reality is not necessarily an absolute truth. Every belief by its very nature is limiting! And I’m using the term limiting belief here in a different way than many interpret it. In the Sethian sense, limiting beliefs are seen as “bad” since they hold us back from manifesting our dreams and desires. I’m using the word limit in a more universal way to apply to any belief held by anyone who perceives physical reality through the primary lens of five-senses-only perception, through linear space-time only.

Here are some thoughts from Seth that make this point clearer:

“You are in physical existence to learn and understand that your energy, translated into feelings, thoughts and emotions, causes all experience. There are no exceptions.

“Once you understand this you have only to learn to examine the nature of your beliefs, for these will automatically cause you to feel and think in certain fashions. Your emotions follow your beliefs. It is not the other way around.

“I would like you to recognize your own beliefs in several areas. You must realize that any idea you accept as truth is a belief that you hold. You must, then, take the next step and say, ‘It is not necessarily true, even though I believe it.’ You will, I hope, learn to disregard all beliefs that imply basic limitations.” (8)

“As mentioned, the first important step is to realize that your beliefs about reality are just that—beliefs about reality. You must make a clear distinction between you and your beliefs. You must then realize that your beliefs are physically materialized. What you believe to be true in your experience is true.” (9)

And though this is part of a broader topic – the nature of Absolute Universal Truth in relation to the relative nature of belief systems – it is important to mention here. (10) It is no accident that Seth, Elias, and every teacher of perennial ideas say that Universal Truth is to be verified through direct, inner experience. We learn by doing. For every question we ask, we get an answer. For every answer we get, we formulate new questions. The inner senses are native to us all, implicit in our biology, and not just the purview of virtuosos like Jane Roberts. So, just like playing the piano or riding a bike, we too can explore hyperception by developing our inner senses. (11)

Let’s return now to the channeling phenomenon. As defined earlier, channeling has been with us as long as there have been people. Jon Klimo, a psychologist, is the author of a highly regarded tome on the subject: Channeling: Investigations on Receiving Information from Paranormal Sources. It is a thorough investigation into the history and nature of channeling. He repeatedly points out how even though channeling has often been tucked away “into the closet” of unsavory experiences, it simply refuses to go away.

Klimo says that:

“In truth, channeling is not some recent faddish phenomenon. It is as old as human nature. Throughout history, channels have gone under names as various as shamans, seers, and mediums, although the process involved appears to be the same. The channeling ability has manifested itself time and again in myriad circumstances, whether it has been the aboriginal elder, the maiden turned priestess, or the modern businessperson or homemaker. The fact that channeling, under whatever name, has taken place on this planet continually, among so many kind of people and across so many cultures, leads to the speculation that channeling may be a potential ability we all possess.” (12)

Since the biblical times of Abraham, when an anthropomorphosized god figure purportedly “spoke unto” and “through” the Prophets of the Old Testament, we have been presented with cases of channeling. And yet, from criticisms of false prophets and demonic possession to dissociative identity disorder, religious and scientific belief systems have unsuccessfully attempted to confine and invalidate channeling in the West.

Jane Roberts’s level-headed introspection and speculation in her three Aspect Psychology books offer compelling anecdotal evidence that these criticisms are based upon models of the psyche and universe that are still narrow and incomplete. Also, keep in mind that when Jane was engaging the Seth phenomenon in the 1960’s, the idea of channeling was not widely known. It was still very much on the fringe of various occult and metaphysical groups.

In the year 2003 there are now dozens, if not hundreds, of people offering channeled information publicly through various books, tapes, websites, newsgroups, and email lists on the Internet. Channeled information is available through a variety of public and private sessions from sources like Ramtha, Lazarus, James, Archangel Michael, Kryon, Abraham, Bashar, Enoch, Datre, and many more. And even though channeling is not yet talked about regularly on the evening news, it is more “out of the closet” than ever before in Western history.

Jon Klimo states that “since 1986, channeling has reached into the grassroots. It has entered the popular vocabulary. Channeling now is part of current mainstream consensus reality.” (13) A good example is the imagery that graced the cover of the March 26, 2000 Los Angeles Times Calendar Magazine, the one that reports on the local entertainment scene. It pictures comedian Billy Crystal in deep concentration, sitting barefoot and cross-legged, eyes closed, surrounded by icons of the year’s best movies nominated for the upcoming Academy Awards T.V. show. The headline simply reads, “Channeling Oscar.”

What does it all mean? While mainstream science and religion have found ways to dismiss and discredit it, the channeling phenomenon has always been a part of the human experience. So, we need expanded models of the psyche and the universe to further understand multidimensional reality. The models presented by Seth, Elias, and transpersonal and integral psychology do just that. Together, they all play a part in revealing the validity and importance of the channeling phenomenon along with the inner senses and the nature of belief systems.

[ Go to the top ]

Building the Conceptual Bridge Between Seth and Elias

Elias says that he engages an “energy exchange” with Mary Ennis. This exchange is similar to what many call channeling, but Elias makes an interesting distinction. Channeling involves an interaction with aspects of one’s own inner self, an energy exchange involves a mergence and an exchange with another inner self. Mary’s experience has changed many times since the sessions began and continues to develop.

Regarding the Seth material that pre-dates his own, Elias claims to be fully aware of it. When asked why he uses different words to describe the same concepts as Seth, Elias says he does not wish to perpetuate a new cult built around these ideas. For example, Elias uses the term “essence” to mean the same thing as Seth’s term “entity,” and “regional areas of consciousness” parallels “frameworks of consciousness,” and essence “families” parallels “families” of consciousness.

“As I continue in [giving] information to you, as an addition and also a repetition of information of another essence [Seth], I may alter terminology for the purpose of not creating belief systems within you to be encouraging you to be creating a new ‘sect.’ Therefore my terms may, at times, be slightly different, although their definition and meanings are the same.” [session 88, April 21, 1996]

SHERI: “My friend, Chris, has a question. She was wondering: ‘Why does he choose the syntax he does and convoluted sentences? Is it a filtering a system?’

ELIAS: Let me express to you, within this energy exchange and offering an objective expression through language, incorporating words and expressions that shall not be reinforcing of your beliefs requires creativity. (Chuckling)

SHERI: (Laughs) I told her it had something to do with not reinforcing our beliefs!” (Elias laughs) [session 983, January 18, 2002]

Elias also says that he belongs to a different “family” of consciousness – Sumafi – than Seth, who says he holds Sumari intent. Here’s what Rob Butts had to say about Seth in this regard:

“We may not be able to pin Seth – as that energy personality essence calls himself – down to one physical race, but he is a Sumari: ‘And a very high lieutenant indeed, I will have you know,’ he told us with much humor in his first session on the Sumari family of consciousness, the 598th for November 24, 1971. A month later he offered more insights on his own reality – the kind of information we’re always interested in acquiring. From Session 601 for December 22 of that year, then:

‘As my name basically makes little difference, so does the name Sumari make little difference. But the names signify an independent, unique kind of consciousness that makes use of certain boundaries.’

‘Your [Rob’s and Jane’s Sumari] consciousness is that kind of consciousness, and so is mine, except that my boundaries are far less limited than your own, and I recognize them not as boundaries but as directions in which recognition of myself must grow. The same applies to the Sumari as such. In other words, this is not an undifferentiated consciousness that addresses you now, but one that understands the nature of its own identity.’

‘It is a personal consciousness. The difference in degree, however, between my recognition of my identity and your recognition of your own reality is vast. Do you follow me?’

‘Yes,’ I said. (I underlined Seth’s phrase above because I think he expressed an important, creative aspect of his reality.)

‘The point is that I am not impersonal any more than you are, in those terms, and in those same terms the Sumari are also individual and to that extent personal. You are a part of the Sumari. You have certain characteristics, in simple terms, as a family might have certain characteristics, or the members of a nation’.” (14)

While many Seth readers are familiar with the concept of Sumari, they are still unfamiliar with the other eight “families” of consciousness introduced in The “Unknown” Reality, Vol. 2. (15) As a brief introduction, Seth says that the idea of “families” is symbolic for something beneath physical appearances – a nonphysical source-attribute unique to individualized consciousness. We can “slice the pie” of consciousness any way we want when analyzing our conscious universe in quantitative or qualitative terms. But the nine “families” idea is intended only as an orienting metaphor to describe the innate intention of the collective, over six billion people by present estimates! It is not meant to be taken literally. In other words, if you imagine that there are humanized beings frolicking around inner space that watch over us little earthlings, then you’ve got it all wrong.

While Seth clearly states that Rob belongs to the Sumari, the “families” metaphor also has a deeper, intuitive meaning that also describes the innate intention of the multidimensional personality. That is, consciousness is naturally imbued with certain propensities by Primary Source, or what Seth calls All-That-Is. The actual words we use to describe these propensities are of secondary importance.

The “families” are not individually distinct. They are not concrete qualities that are separable. In nonphysical terms, consciousness is holonically nested and merged. In physical terms, Seth offered the concept of subdivisions of the nine intents to explain the countless variations and permutations of intent as expressed by people. Just like a prism breaks white light into component colors, so too, does the “families” metaphor break the Whole of collective human consciousness into a spectrum of innate intention designed to promote maximum value fulfillment for all life on the planet.

However, when you look at our rainbow analogy from a “distance” separate colors can be seen. Yet when viewed up close, it is impossible to clearly discern where one color stops and another begins; they blur into each other. This means that there can be overlaps, hybrids, and endless shades of intention, all of which act as a kind of primary fuel expressed through our impulse steams. This means that the healing intent, for example, can subdivide to specialize in interpersonal relationships, specific areas of human anatomy, or surgery, etc. Or the healing intent can combine with the teaching intent to specialize in teaching the art of healing, or surgery, etc.

Again, each intent is not defined as a discrete quantity or quality, but intuitively, as innate characteristics of the pool of infinite psychic potentials and latent human probabilities all within the context of All-That-Is. And in order to understand this in terms of one’s own intent, all you need do is look at the things in your life that have come naturally and effortlessly. You will find that your individual intent has been consistently expressed throughout your entire life, from the time you were a child through adolescence and adulthood.

A simple exercise to help you hone in on your own intent is to create your own intent name, something that expresses the fulfilling things you do naturally. It can be simple like “discoverer” or more involved like “teacher/artist/parent.” There’s no way to get this wrong and you can always refine it as you go.

Regarding his Sumafi intent and how it colors the information he offers, as opposed to that of other channelers, Elias says that:

“... I wish to express to you a reminding that each essence that is communicating with you all is offering information in conjunction with their intent as expressed in alignment with the essence family of which they may belong to, and each of these intents are different. Therefore, the expressions of the information offered may be slightly different also, for different family intents do not concern themselves with the accuracy, so to speak, of certain terminology.

“They also may not concern themselves with your belief systems per se. In one respect, they are concerning themselves with your belief systems in offering you information to be widening your awareness in conjunction with your belief systems, but many essences may move in the direction of expression of moving within the framework of your belief systems and not necessarily challenging those belief systems.

“Within the expression of the intent of the Sumafi family, the information offered is to be delivered within the least amount of distortion. In this, offering information in conjunction with your belief systems – within the framework of your belief systems, that shall be reinforcing of them – is NOT in alignment with this intent.

“Therefore, as I offer you information, I may move in the direction of offering similar information to other essences, and I may also offer you an expanded version, so to speak, of information which moves beyond the confines of your belief systems and therefore challenges you in the area of moving your awareness into an acceptance; not merely an altering of your belief systems and not merely a continuation of movement within them, but to be allowing you an expanded amount of information, that you may view more clearly your belief systems and recognize the affectingness of them.” [session 437, August 03, 1999]

“There are few essences presently of the Sumafi family that are physically engaging energy exchanges. (16) Therefore, these few shall be the only ones that are expressing to you outside of your accepted belief systems and terminology, for this essence family engages the intent of the least distortion. Other essence families do not engage this intent. Therefore, it matters not to these essences how they are expressing within your language and your belief systems. They are merely attempting to be helpful.

“This essence [of Elias] shall be expressing to you outside of your accepted official belief systems, therefore may be causing slightly more confusion and seeming to be conflicting with other information that other essences are offering, but it is not conflicting. They are merely expressing to you within the confines of your belief systems, and this essence, for the most part, shall not be.” [session 220, September 20, 1997]

My interpretation of “outside of accepted official belief systems” is that Elias offers information that doesn’t align with our mainstream, consensus reality. And in terms of perennial imagery this includes the avoidance of angels, demons, star-born aliens, guides, and a host of other New Age and religious belief systems. In other words, his information is outside of the mass beliefs held by the majority at present including many scientific, religious, and New Age belief systems. How Zen. And how challenging!

It’s also important to point out that “outside of accepted official belief systems” doesn’t mean without belief systems. We each “create our own reality” through the complex filters of our beliefs systems – expectations, intent, thought, emotion, and desire. So as long as we create through our physical senses, we create and perceive through the filters of our belief systems.

On the other hand, we can also apply this concept of “outside of belief systems” to the Seth material and the fact that they have yet to hit mainstream Western thinking. Seth ideas were intended to lay a conceptual foundation while making no claim at being complete or presented by an infallible source. Seth said that:

“Truth contains no distortions, and this material with all my best efforts, and with yours, of necessity must contain distortions merely in order to make itself exist at all on your plane. I will never condone an attitude in which either you or [Jane] maintain that you hold undiluted truth through these sessions.

“Any material, to exist on your plane, must to some extent don the attire of your plane, and in the very entry to your plane it must be somewhat distorted. I must use phrases with which your minds are somewhat familiar. I must use [Jane’s] subconscious to some degree. If I did not take advantage of your own camouflage system, then you would not be able to understand the material at this time.

“Inner data, even this, must make its entry through some distortion. We must always work together, but you must never consider me as an infallible source. This material is more valid than any material possible on your plane, but it is nevertheless to some degree conditioned by the camouflage attributes of the plane.

“... I want to make it plain that we are certainly not setting up a new dogma.” (17)

Though the Seth material has yet to be embraced by any majority, and is not designed to be, Seth did state that these ideas will one day take their place in mainstream Western thinking:

“This material will take its place in the conceptual and emotional life of Western civilization, and finally will make its way throughout the world. New ideas are not accepted easily. When they take fire however, they literally sweep through the universe.” (18)

Was the above a literal or a figurative statement? Only time will tell. As of this writing, Seth’s ideas, though still outside of our officially accepted belief systems, are slowly gaining a wider audience. All of his books have been back in print since the mid 1990’s. And many people in various walks of life, like Deepak Chopra, Caroline Myss, Christian de Quincy, Willis Harman, Fred Alan Wolf, Charles Tart, and Louise Hay have provided public testimonials to support the richness, depth, and practical use of the Seth material within the fields of human potential and alternative medicine.

This widening interest in the work of Jane Roberts and Seth adds a layer of intrigue to any source that comes along and appears to ride on its coat tails. And yet in my view that is exactly what we have in the information offered by Elias whose ideas will either hold up to scrutiny or be discredited, as will any new paradigm that stands upon the shoulders of the preceding one.

[ Go to the top ]

What About Seth’s and Elias’ Odd Speech Mannerisms?

When one reads their first Elias transcript one of the initial obstacles is his “improper” English syntax, run-on sentences, and even “made-up” words. For many, his verbal style is easier to listen to than read at first. It sounds like an early nineteenth century version of Franglish, or mixed French and English syntax. While many people believe themselves to be open to new ideas and willing to explore the unknown, I am often struck by how many falter at this point.

In terms of odd verbal syntax and the Seth material, consider that in all of the published material Seth’s unique accent and way of adding a run-on “ah” at the end words has not been phonetically transcribed. No doubt this would have made Seth’s verbal syntax seem quite flamboyant and even bizarre, turning off many readers and potential buyers of the Seth books back in the 1970’s.

This is to say that Rob Butts, who transcribed almost every Seth session except for some of the ESP classes, translated Seth’s dictation into a format that he and Jane were comfortable with. In hindsight, it seems ridiculous to even consider adding all of the “-ahs” that Seth/Jane uttered during those many hours of dictation, doesn’t it?

Yet, this is a perfect example of how we translate subjective expressions to fit the molds of our own prejudiced perception to maintain our own comfort level in dealing with something new. This isn’t “bad” or offered as a criticism, but something that we naturally do. “Prejudiced perception” was a term invented by Jane herself to describe the propensity of our belief systems to filter and morph things to fit into our notions of propriety, expectation, and even linguistic habituation. (19)

The following example, from an ESP class session on August 31, 1971, makes this point clearer. In the transcript that accompanies the audio CD, the following sentence was transcribed as:

“Even our friend, Edward, believes that he has a physical body.” (20)

The actual spoken version, transcribed phonetically, would be:

“Even our friend-ah, Edward-ah, believes that he has a physical body-ah.”

My point here is really about the initial resistance we all have to something unfamiliar, whether it be Seth’s “ahing” or Elias’ odd verbal syntax. After all, we are talking about the unique speech traits of transpersonal aspect selves, whose native state exists in a framework of consciousness alien to our own. So the resistance to Elias’ unusual verbal style is quite natural. Many of us resist anything that comes in a “foreign” language, too, whether it be a book, movie, or “channeled” entity.

Also, consider the way we perceive someone like Stephen Hawking, the prize winning physicist and mathematician? He talks funny too! In fact, he has to rely on typing his thoughts into a speech synthesizer to communicate. Can you imagine listening to Stephen give a lecture? You might end up wanting to pull your hair out as you impatiently watch him slowly type away and his voice box drones on and on and on. And those typos! Oy, they drive me nuts! Still, that doesn’t mean what he has to say is not important.

But seriously, another point to consider is how strange it was to first hear Seth/Jane’s accent on The Seth Video or the Seth Audio Collection after imagining it solely through the books for many years. Most people, myself included, got to know Seth and Jane in the 1970’s and 1980’s primarily through the millions of books sold, not through first-hand interaction, audio tapes, or video tapes.

As the years pass, I continue to receive emails from people who feel that Elias’ syntax is initially problematic. Some overcome it, some don’t. The following is from a long time Seth reader whom I met at Seth-related conference that shows an emerging trend. She says,

“I couldn’t ‘cope’ with Elias’ convoluted, arcane sentence structure in the beginning and I was very dismissive of it. It struck me as sounding phony and artificial. But then again I hadn’t heard Seth speak audibly until very recently, and was very shocked at the strangeness I felt for this! I guess Rob had a real way of slightly restructuring the words to [make them] feel comfortable to us as a reading audience – and of course, the books are minus the actual physical voicing. Now, with help from my friend, [Phil], I see this in a different manner on several levels. [He] thinks that this overlapping wording of Elias’ forces us to read much slower and read over again to clarify – so that we don’t mentally jump into ‘preset’ assumptions. And of course, Elias also mentions that he doesn’t use words of Seth’s for similar reasons.” (21)

Jane Roberts offered keen insights into the limits of spoken language to accurately express metaphysical concepts and subjective, inner experience. Even though the following was offered in the context of Seth’s choice of gender terminology, it also applies to the topic at hand.

“Seth is using the English language (my native one) to discuss issues that often involve concepts most difficult to describe in the language itself – or, indeed in any language.

“Obviously, Seth’s purpose is to explain what he can within the framework of that language, rather than to change the language itself – as would be necessary, for example, to escape its often prejudiced nature.” (22)

Perhaps it is within Elias’ intent of “providing information with the least distortion” to actually change linguistic syntax just enough to deal with the “prejudiced nature” of English?

I also took the opportunity to ask Rob Butts at a Seth Network Int’l. conference in June, 1999 how many people he thought had participated in Jane’s ESP classes over the years. We were sitting in the bar of the Holiday Inn in Elmira, NY, where he and Jane used to dance and drink with friends in earlier days. He responded, “around two or three hundred.”

The point is that more people were reached intentionally through the dissemination of Seth books (and eventually audio tapes) than by coming to an ESP class. Therefore, the vast majority of Seth readers are just that: readers. Many never had the pleasure (and challenge!) of interacting with Seth/Jane in person, or ever heard Seth speak through audio tapes, CDs, or video. Similarly, the transcripts of Elias sessions as they presently exist on the Internet are the main medium used for disseminating this body of information. Luckily, as of this writing, people still have the opportunity to attend an Elias session and experience the phenomenon through direct personal interaction. But as time goes on, the majority of people reached by these types of phenomenon are reached more often through the written rather than spoken word, and even less through direct personal contact.

For those who prefer reading, the Elias transcripts are in an authentic format that has yet to be affected by any publishing interests. But this is not to suggest in any way that Rob and Jane were adversely affected by commercial interests or anything so absurd. The point is that the Elias transcripts are presently difficult to read for the average new reader.

Also, the depth and richness of the information are rarely present in any single transcript. In fact they are very similar to reading the transcripts from Jane’s ESP class. Oftentimes the people and their issues seem vague and Seth’s ideas somewhat shallow without the benefit of Rob’s copious notes to set the stage compared to Seth’s lengthy book dissertations. As such, each Elias transcript offers only a small nugget of the larger multidimensional puzzle being explored in a completely spontaneous format shaped by whomever Elias interacts with. And Seth is the one who reminded us that “spontaneity knows its own order.” (23) So it follows that there is an underlying intent and agenda at work. (This was also my main motivation for spending most of the past five years compiling and editing over 4,500 pages of transcripts into the Digests of Essential Elias, found on this website, since they provide much greater depth of all the main ideas introduced to date. Though they have been publicly available for only a year, the initial response has been overwhelmingly positive.)

Still, Elias has indicated that he is not interested in writing books any time soon, if ever. (24) So why then is he choosing to be unconventional in this regard? To weed out the half-hearted? To prevent a new cult from being formed? Because he isn’t capable of it? Because there is less distortion inherent in a website of transcripts and Digests in hypertext format? Or because he has stated that for the most part his information will remain “outside of officially accepted belief systems” per his intent? Once again, only time will tell.

This also raises the question – is the book format really the best way to disseminate metaphysical ideas as opposed to direct experience? After all, the ideas are not offered in some kind of symbolic logic or mathematical language. A book format helps the mind to focus on a greater depth of the ideas, granted. But there are limitations to the book format because it codes the ideas to fit within five-senses-only perception. Recall that the two volumes of Seth’s The “Unknown” Reality are the only Seth books intentionally not structured in chapter format so as to break up our linear, cause and effect perception. Seth mentioned that:

“This book had no chapters [in order] to further disrupt your accepted notions of what a book should be. There are different kinds of organizations present, however, and in any given section of the book, several levels of consciousness are appealed to at once.” (25)

It was purposefully challenging when I first read The “Unknown” Reality without the familiar chapter format to “organize” things. This magnum opus is also the only Seth book with a self-contained “yoga” or curriculum of exercises called Practice Elements geared to awaken inner sensing and promote hyperception. So it follows that there was an underlying intent and agenda at work there, too.

[ Go to the top ]

What are some Differences between Seth and Elias?

We began our discussion of Seth and Elias by focusing upon common elements in both teachings because if we had begun with differences, we would have most likely gotten hopelessly entangled in semantical differences. At some point, however, we must begin to look at those differences and do our best to reconcile them. So let’s briefly return now to our exploration of the different “family” of consciousness intents held by each source.

Seth says he belongs to the Sumari “family.” Elias says that he belongs to the Sumafi family. According to Elias, the Sumari are doers, artists, very creative, playful and their efforts tend to stir the proverbial pot. The Sumafi intent is to present information with the least distortion.

Don’t get thrown by Seth’s earlier statement about not being considered an infallible source while doing his best to communicate with low distortion. While both are talking about distortion, the type and amount of distortion present in each source can be best understood through the lens of their different “family” intents.

Can one source be “more” clear than the other in terms of the written word? And by what standards, what set of metrics do we discern the validity of Elias’ claim of holding the intent to offer information with “least distortion?” We can debate ad nauseam about the differences between low (Seth) and least (Elias) distortion and between definitions of their intent, but these arguments eventually spin endlessly on the “hamster wheel of better and worse,” which is simply not the point. Does a rose smell better than a gardenia?

So then, what is the point? Just what criteria best determines the usefulness of any collected body of perennial ideas? The answer is simple and consistent throughout history. The potency or potentiality, in terms of personal use and shelf-life, is what ultimately determines the utility of any perennial teaching. In some Sufi traditions the word baraka is used to describe this same characteristic. In other words, can you consistently discern and apply these ideas to everyday situations and enhance the quality of your life in terms of health, abundance, loving relationships, creativity, and fulfillment? And can the ideas also enhance the fulfillment of the collective? Furthermore, can it penetrate to various levels of your consciousness, not just the egocentric self, where it will most promote overall growth? (26)

Those bodies of work whose potency is strong will pass the test of time, similar to great music, literature, and theater. We still listen to Beethoven, read Aristotle, and watch Shakespearean drama because they contain the ability to reach deep into our psyche and communicate something beautiful and meaningful. Granted, these are subjective contexts, not absolute contexts defined by mathematical precision. Still, there are ways to determine the practical application and hence the potency of any body of perennial writing. Here is some useful advice from the ancient Dzogchen Buddhist tradition that sounds like it could have come from either Seth or Elias (note: the brackets are mine):

“Do not rely upon the individual [teacher], but rely upon the teaching.

“As far as the teachings go, do not rely upon the words alone, but rely upon the meaning that underlies them.

“Regarding the meaning, do not rely upon the provisional [intellectual] meaning alone, but rely upon the definitive meaning [intuitive].

“And regarding the definitive meaning, do not rely upon ordinary consciousness [five-senses-only], but rely upon wisdom awareness [hyperception].” (27)

This reflects a key difference between traditional Eastern and Western teaching practices. In the West, we cram our heads full of book knowledge, memorize mathematical formulas, and hold the results of standardized tests as the highest, most accurate measure of achievement and competency. In the East, it is only through intuition that Truth is ever approached. And yet, both Seth and Elias tell us in their own ways that experience is our best teacher, that only through learning to consciously use our inner senses will we ever understand that we really are multidimensional personalities.

Seth said:

“You are multipersons. You exist in many times and places at once. You exist as one person, simultaneously. This does not deny the independence of the persons, but your inner reality straddles their reality, while it also serves as a psychic world in which they can grow.

“I do not want to get involved in a discussion of ‘levels,’ in which progression is supposed to occur from one to the other. All such discussions are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul.” (28)

“Each identity has free will, and chooses its environment as a physical stance in space and time. Those involved in a given century are working on particular problems and challenges. Various races do not simply ‘happen,’ and diverse cultures do not just appear. The greater self [psyche] ‘divides’ itself, materializing in flesh as several individuals, with entirely different backgrounds – yet with each embarked upon the same kind of creative challenge.

“The black man is somewhere a white man or woman in your time. The white man or woman is somewhere black. The oppressor is somewhere the oppressed. The conqueror is somewhere the conquered. The primitive is somewhere sophisticated – and, in your terms, somewhere on the face of the same earth in your general time. The murderer is somewhere the victim, and the other way around – and again, in your terms of space and time.

“Each will choose his or her own Framework, according to the intent of the consciousness of which each of you is an independent part. In such a fashion are the challenges and opportunities inherent in a given ‘time’ worked out.” (29)

Let’s return now to our exploration of the different “family” intents between Seth and Elias. We’ve already heard from Elias. According to Seth, the Sumari are initiators, naturally playful – inventors, and relatively unfettered. They are impatient however. They will be found in the arts and in the less conventional sciences. According to Rob, the Sumari provide a cultural, spiritual, and artistic heritage for the species. Seth says that the Sumafi intent deals primarily with teaching, their primary interest of passing on knowledge to others. According to Rob, they transmit “originality” through teaching.

Are these “family” definitions just another case of three “blind men” describing the different parts of a post-metaphysical elephant? You say po-ta-to and I say po-tah-to? Or is it apples and oranges? Obviously, we are hoping to raise more questions than provide answers here. It is difficult to be definitive when dealing with such an esoteric concept as a “family” of consciousness intent. Still, it makes sense that Elias, Seth, and Rob would tend to use their own vocabulary to describe them.

On the other hand, it also follows that Elias would use “alternate” terminology to describe the same post-metaphysical phenomena as Seth, so as not to lend energy to the creation of a new cult around their ideas, as mentioned earlier, per his intent. Still, is one better or worse? Is one more accurate? No! They are only words and nothing more. The words they use to describe these qualities within consciousness are not the qualities themselves. They serve only as secondary representations for the purpose of verbal communication. So, ultimately, the ideas described by words are more important than the words themselves. That is, it is more important to discern what Seth or Elias mean conceptually, not what labels they choose to use.

Regarding the relationship between the different “family” intents held by Seth and himself, Elias said:

“The Sumafi is greatly involved with Sumari, for Sumafi incorporates before and after. When your Sumaris appear, they are taught by Sumafi. When they disappear, their ideas are continued and held steadfast by Sumafi. Within your present time, the Sumari have initiated, they have manifest, they have ‘stirred your pot’ temporarily, they have altered your focus. Now, the Sumafi incorporates the carrying on of this in teaching.” [session 67, January 21, 1997]

Even though Elias appears to be describing concrete “things” in the above excerpt, again, it is very important to remember that he is referring to a quality of intention that also applies to nonphysical consciousness, which is beyond “thing-ness.” It is very easy to turn this idea into something akin to tribal or astrological designations. And when we do that, we separate them into better (us) and worse (them) which, again, is not the point. The point is to help us understand, in objective terms, the subjective nature of multidimensional personality from individual and collective perspectives.

But the question remains, given that they would use different words for some ideas, why then are Seth and Elias using the exact same nine “families?” To my knowledge no one else has ever mentioned the “families” metaphor in this way before Seth did in 1975. It appears to be a newly emerging mythos to help us better understand ourselves in relationship to the nature of the multidimensional psyche and multiverse. The closest expression to the nine families I’ve found is the enneagram that came from the Sufi tradition to the West through a teacher named Gurdjieff early in the twentieth century. (30) And if the “families” metaphor accurately describes the primary inner archetypes of the collective consciousness, we should find it in some variation in the myths from all over the world, but I’ll save that for another essay.

The reason we’ve spent so much time on the “families” metaphor is that this area of the Seth material has been greatly expanded by Elias. Elias is building upon the foundation laid by Seth in much the same way music historians now consider Brahms’ First Symphony to be “Beethoven’s Tenth.” In other words, they offer complementary bodies of material that build upon the same tradition of perennial ideas. Though the words are new, these ideas are not! Just like the basic chords and intervals of music did not change from the time of Beethoven to Brahms, Seth’s and Elias’ offerings are nothing more than recent translations of perennial ideas into the context of Western belief systems and the English language. One preceded the other and served as a stepping stone for the next. And so on, and so on, and shoo-bee doo-bee doo-bee.

Like Beethoven and Brahms, Seth and Elias do not exist in a vacuum. There are many bodies of work that explore similar ideas. For example, The Course in Miracles and the work of Edgar Cayce preceded the Seth material. More recently, the Conversations with God series by Neale Donald Walsch deals with perennial ideas. All of these works were produced through some sort of channeling. None of these sources come as close to the depth, clarity, and low distortion in describing the nature of inner reality, multidimensional personality and the multiverse as Seth and Elias do, however.

And this is not to say that these other works have no utility, they do! All of them serve a purpose and follow an underlying intent and agenda. As always, it is ultimately up to readers to make their own determination. But what works today may not work tomorrow. And what doesn’t work today, may suddenly work tomorrow. This is the nature of our ever changing consciousness and belief systems. They evolve along with our experience.

At this point, it’s time for Elias to shed more light on his intent and relationship to Seth in his own words:

VIVIEN: “... I remember when I first found the first Seth book that I read – Seth Speaks – that changed my life so profoundly, and I’m wondering ... I really don’t know what my question is, but I’m wondering what the connections are with you, with Seth, with Jane, with Rob. I’ve had lots of dreams about Jane and Rob, and a couple of dreams recently with you. I had a feeling that you were there. The last dream was a couple of days ago. I awoke and I heard your voice saying ... I can’t remember what it is now, but I heard it very clearly, and I felt as if I was in a classroom with you. Perhaps you could start by telling me a little bit about that, if you would.

ELIAS: “Let us begin with the beginning! You have drawn yourself to information of this other teacher [Seth] in preparation for the direction that you have chosen to continue with this essence of Elias. In this, you have offered yourself information for your understanding as a preparatory introduction to these concepts and to the action of this shift. Many individuals find this information difficult to assimilate if they are not allowing themselves within previous time periods other information to be preparing themselves for this information. This information is a continuation of this other essence’s [Seth’s] information; moving you into the action of this shift [in Sethian terms, the probabilities involving a major spiritual change by 2075] more decisively, altering your perceptions and addressing to belief systems.

“Before this other teacher was espousing on the subject of belief systems, individuals held no awareness that they hold belief systems. This was a foreign concept to you. Now, as you move more definitively into the action of this shift objectively – not as much subjectively, as has been the case within the rest of your century, but as you move into more of an objective awareness of this shift – you also need be addressing to belief systems, for this is the point of this shift in consciousness which shall be altering of your entire reality. But initially, you must be addressing to the situation that you hold belief systems, and that all of your events that you create within your reality are filtered through your belief systems. You do not act, except occasionally, outside of your belief systems. There are certain areas and actions or events that may occur within your focus which are not necessarily filtered through your belief systems, although they are influenced by your belief systems, for they appear within your objective awareness.

“In this, you have drawn yourself to information to prepare yourself for ongoing information, and this be the connection between the two essences [Seth and Elias] and the action which is furthered between these two essences. Also, [you are] allowing yourself within your individual intent to be better understanding the action of this shift, and therefore allowing yourself to be more helpful within its action. Some individuals draw themselves to information to be helpful within the action of this shift and some individuals merely participate within the action of this shift, needing helpfulness. This be your connection between these two actions.” [session 225, October 04, 1997]

NATHAN: “I have one more question. Are you in any way connected with Seth?

ELIAS: (Smiling) “In a manner of speaking, but also not. (Laughter) ... [Seth] has been my teacher also within other areas of consciousness, but within this present now, that essence of which you speak has moved into another area of consciousness in a different direction than that which I occupy presently. But the information which has been offered by that teacher has served as the prelude for this information and therefore has been purposefully delivered and executed, and has been in cooperation with this essence of Elias in agreement of offering information to you all to be in preparation of this shift in consciousness.

“Initially, what has been important to be offered is information of yourselves, for if you do not know yourselves, you shall not be prepared for what you are creating. This teacher [Seth] has offered you information of yourselves, and now within this present time frame, I offer you information of what you create.” [session 280, May 14, 1998]

JOE: “In reading one of your recent transcripts, you had said to the individual that you were speaking to, ‘We are not here to learn, but to experience physicality.’ Now I don’t know whether I took this out of context or whatever, but maybe you could clear this up for me.

“Now to me, it kind of seems to be a contradiction in what a lot of other entities have said, like Seth. Seth many times said about physical expression that being here is a learning experience, and Kryon (31) might have put it that we’re here because we’re ‘in lesson.’ Could you comment on that?“

ELIAS: “Very well. Let me initially express to you that different essences may choose different terminology or words in their communication.

“In this, I wish to express to you a reminding that each essence that is communicating with you all is offering information in conjunction with their intent, as expressed in alignment with the essence family [of consciousness] of which they may belong to, and each of these intents are different. Therefore, the expressions of the information offered may be slightly different also, for different family intents do not concern themselves with the accuracy, so to speak, of certain terminology.

“They also may not concern themselves with your belief systems per se. In one respect, they are concerning themselves with your belief systems in offering you information to be widening your awareness in conjunction with your belief systems, but many essences may move in the direction of expression of moving within the framework of your belief systems and not necessarily challenging those belief systems.

“Within the expression of the intent of the Sumafi family, the information offered is to be delivered within the least amount of distortion. In this, offering information in conjunction with your belief systems – within the framework of your belief systems, that shall be reinforcing of them – is NOT in alignment with this intent.

“Therefore, as I offer you information, I may move in the direction of offering similar information to other essences, and I may also offer you an expanded version, so to speak, of information which moves beyond the confines of your belief systems and therefore challenges you in the area of moving your awareness into an acceptance; not merely an altering of your belief systems and not merely a continuation of movement within them, but to be allowing you an expanded amount of information, that you may view more clearly your belief systems and recognize the affectingness of them.

“Now, as to your manifestation within this particular physical dimension, I hold the awareness that it has been stated to you many times – and you have created belief systems in this area and you align with these belief systems and are creating your reality accordingly – in the direction that this particular dimension of physical manifestation is a learning process, a dimension of schooling, so to speak.

“I express to you that, quite liberally viewing this type of expression, in a figurative manner of speaking, you may express to yourselves that in one respect this may be correct, but this is a very liberal stretching of the actual action that you are creating within this physical dimension, for in a manner of speaking, you may express to yourselves that you are learning in one respect, for you are assimilating information. In this, what shall we define as the action of learning but to be accessing and assimilating information, be it in any type of expressed form. Therefore, in a liberal sense, you may express to yourselves that you are, in a manner of speaking, learning.

“I move quite intentionally away from these types of expressions, knowing that this merely reinforces your belief systems that you are less than, that you are aspiring to, and that you are growing, in a manner of speaking, none of which is the reality of the situation in actuality.

“You are not aspiring to anything. You are not growing, in a manner of speaking, for what shall you grow to? This suggests that there may be higher planes for you to aspire to, which is also incorrect. You are not learning as students, for this suggests that there may be areas of consciousness or essences that hold greater knowledge than do you or are higher or more efficient than you, and I express to you that this is also incorrect, for you already occupy all areas of consciousness as essence. Your attention is merely focused in each area, and in this, your attention is focused presently in this particular focus, this particular manifestation.

“This is only one of your attentions. All of your attentions are occurring simultaneously. This is one area of your attention.

“In this, you manifest within physical dimensions to be exploring your own creativity, your abilities, your imagination, in a manner of speaking. You are experimenting and you are exploring. You are in actuality creating the same action that you are creating within all other areas of consciousness – you are becoming, which is a continual state. In this, you are assimilating experiences, and you create this for it is pleasurable and for within essence there is an insatiable curiosity of self and what you may be creating and what you may be exploring within all that you are. You are not aspiring to be any ‘thing’ else, for you already are! You are merely exploring all of the abilities that you already hold and all of the experiences within you that you choose to be actualizing and manifesting. You already hold all information that is or ever shall be, but you choose to be actualizing that information through different experiments and explorations of experiences.

“Therefore, I express to you that you manifest within this dimension not as a student, not to be learning, so to speak, in the definition that you hold within your physical dimension, for there is no being that holds any more than yourself. You ARE essence. You ARE All-That-Is. Therefore, there is no thing for you to learn, but there is much for you to explore and for you to experience. I wish not to move in the direction of reinforcing the belief systems in duplicity that you hold to very tightly within this physical dimension that express to yourselves that you are less than any element within consciousness, for this is quite incorrect.

“Now, this is not to discount information that is offered by other essences, for it is merely a difference in choice of terminology within your language, and this may be open to interpretation in like manner to the information that I offer. You each interpret the information that I offer to you filtered through your belief systems, but this also be the reason that I choose intentionally what I express to you, to be presenting the least amount of distortion which is possible to be offered within the framework of the filtration which occurs through the translation into your objective communication, for I hold an awareness that there shall be elements of distortion, for you filter through your belief systems into the creation of your perception, and therefore there shall be elements of distortion, but this need not be reinforced in my offering of information to you in the area of compliance with your belief systems and merely lending energy to their perpetuation.

“Other essences do not concern themselves with this type of action, for it is not an element of their intent. Their intent may be different. They may concern themselves with the offering of information, but it matters not how they are offering the information, and this is quite in conjunction with their intent, which is an element of the family that they belong to.

“In the area of your teacher Seth – which YOU designate as a teacher – the essence family is not of Sumafi but that of Sumari, and those essences belonging to this family of Sumari do not concern themselves with elements of your language and factors of distortion. This is not the point in the offering of information by that essence, for the point is to be shaking you, so to speak, into a new awareness. This is the intent, to initially open your vision to new concepts, which are not necessarily in actuality new, but their presentment is different, which moves you into a new area of allowance, of awareness objectively, which also is helpful in allowing you future opening of awareness in objective terms, which is what you create now.

“Therefore, it has been a shaking, so to speak, of your objective awareness. In very figurative terms, it may be likened to another attempt at shaking you from your beds of sleep. You have held many alarm clocks, so to speak, within this century that have been ringing, ringing, ringing, and you all have been resetting them to be sleeping ten more minutes! Ha ha ha ha! And within the ringing of Seth, you have allowed yourself to awaken, and now you move into your day and the presentment of interaction with myself.” (Chuckling)

JOE: “That was really an eye-opening answer! I mean, I don’t think anyone, anywhere, at any time could have answered that question any better. I think now, I completely, maybe not one hundred percent, but I really think I’m really starting to get a handle on a lot of this stuff.”

ELIAS: “Ha ha ha ha! This be the reason also that I express to you that you may not necessarily be discounting of the information which is offered by other essences, for it is not invalidated merely for the reason that it moves within the confines of your belief systems. There is beneficial information offered regardless. ...You offer to yourselves and to each other information continuously to be widening your awareness, which is ALL filtered through your belief systems and offered through your belief systems, but this is not invalidating or discounting of the information that you draw to yourselves. It is merely offered in a different manner.”

JOE: “Yeah, and I can understand that too. I can see how you can take something that’s said, view it from a wide variety of different focuses, not so much in our earthly focuses, but just looking at it from different ways and coming up with different answers – sometimes quite different!

“But I’m absolutely sure that I understand now exactly what the heck it is that you’re saying, as far as that goes, although I’m not that good at verbalizing it.”

ELIAS: “Express to yourself the questioning, that you may also enter discussion with other individuals. You align yourself with information that has been offered within your linear time framework previous by this other essence. You also are privy to elements of the energy exchange which occurred in conjunction with that essence.

“Now; in this, different aspects of that essence were expressed within the energy exchange. How shall this be possible if you do not occupy all areas of consciousness simultaneously? If you are aspiring to greater and higher planes, another aspect of Seth would not hold the ability to be engaging the energy exchange which occurred from what you assess to be a higher plane, for Seth had not approached that yet, in your very physical terms. Therefore, it would not be possible to be accessing that aspect of that essence which was identified by the physically focused individuals as Seth Two, for this would be requiring of Seth to be aspiring to that position.

“But it IS possible, for essences occupy all areas of consciousness already, and you are no different in this respect, regardless that you occupy physical focus. There are focuses of your essence that occupy physical dimensions. There are also focuses of your essence that occupy nonphysical areas of consciousness. It all is occurring simultaneously. Therefore, there is no area for you to be aspiring to.

“This be the reason that I have expressed to individuals many times previously, ‘You are not moving from the third dimension to the fifth dimension or the seventh dimension.’ This is ludicrous! You all occupy all areas of consciousness simultaneously, and no areas are above or below any other areas. There are no planes!

“In this, you already are perfect, and that I express to you not figuratively, but quite literally. Although you do not believe this, you are, and you are creating your reality quite perfectly already! (Chuckling)

JOE: “It’s a lot to understand, at least from my standpoint of being a single physical focus. Even though I know there’s no difference whatsoever, there’s still ... I guess you could say the veil is in place, and so I strive to understand.

ELIAS: “Let me express to you, there are differences. It merely is a matter of choices, and in this, there are no differences in the whole of essence, so to speak, with the exception of the choices that each essence moves into.

“Within your individual focus, the difference which is held is merely in the area of remembrance. You may look to myself or you may look to Seth or you may look to any other essence, and the difference that is expressed is the remembrance. I hold the remembrance, and within the focus in which you hold your attention presently, you do not, but you are moving into that direction, and this is the action of this shift in consciousness.

“You have created your reality within this dimension for millenniums without holding objectively the remembrance, and you choose presently to widen your awareness objectively and incorporate more of the remembrance of essence and of consciousness into your physical reality, allowing you greater freedom and greater abilities to be creating within your physical dimension; once again, an expansion upon your exploration and your creativity.” [session 437, August 03, 1999]

[ Go to the top ]

Four Major Conceptual Areas that Build Upon the Seth Material

The following four conceptual areas provide an overview that builds upon the Seth material that I have discerned to date. There are many others, however, as we will see later. But these four are foundational in terms of the multidimensional psyche, multiverse, and conscious creation. So it is here that we will begin with specific examples. Hyperlinks to Digests of Essential Elias – compilations of excerpts on related topics – provide Elias’ ideas for comparison.

I. You create your reality via complex, integrated belief systems

Seth introduced the notion of “you create your own reality” based upon belief systems and the multidimensional psyche in The Nature of Personal Reality, (1974). Elias enhances this concept by presenting the ten foundational belief systems (session 364) – though he has just begun to address the countless aspects or individual beliefs and their interdependence:

Digests: belief systems; an overview.

Digests: find out more about the ten basic belief systems:

relationships

duplicity

sexuality

truth

emotion

perception

the senses (physical senses/inner senses)

religious (spirituality)

scientific (elements of physical reality)

physical creation of the universe (including accidents and coincidences)

Seth introduced the concept that “you create your reality” within the context of “changing limiting beliefs.” Elias has introduced the concepts of accepting self, accepting belief systems, and accepting others in which the goal is not to change beliefs, but to notice, recognize, address, and accept beliefs, thereby neutralizing the potentials for conflict and trauma/drama. While the means are different on the surface, the end is the same; learning to create a fulfilling life of creativity, abundance, health, loving relationships, and less trauma/drama through greater awareness of the impact of belief systems. All of which, are a function of the multidimensional psyche that evolves in time.

Digests: find out more about:

acceptance 101 (accepting self)

accepting self (belief systems)

acceptance 102 (accepting others).

II. The minimum number of three roles

In The Seth Material, (1970), Chapter 12 – More on Reincarnation – After Death and Between Lives, no session number given, Seth states that we choose a minimum of three roles when experiencing physical reality:

“As a rule, each entity is born so that three roles are experienced – that of mother, father, and child. Two lives would be sufficient to give you the three roles, but in some cases the personality does not function to adulthood. The most important issue, however, is the fullest use of potential.”

Elias uses the term “cycle of manifestation” and originally began with the same minimum of three roles, but with a twist; male, female, and “other” (gay/lesbian). He has since expanded this concept within his ideas on the primary belief system of sexuality; gender, orientation, and preference. He says that we experience a minimum of three orientations, regardless of sexual preference, gender or adult/child. He terms these orientations as “common,” “intermediate,” and “soft.” They are the fundamental “languages” of human perception and are, in fact, independent of sexual preference, which he terms a belief system.

Digests: find out more about the:

cycle of manifestation

belief system of sexuality; gender, orientation, and preference.

IIIa. The nine families of consciousness

Seth introduced the concept of the nine families of consciousness in The “Unknown” Reality, Vol. 2. Elias uses the term “essence families,” but describes the exact same nine with the same pronunciations (with one exception – Seth/Bor-le’-dim and Elias/Bor’-le-dim).

While Seth states that we each belong to one of these nine basic “families,” Elias expands this concept to include our subjective (inner) and objective (outer) awareness. In other words, the subjective self belongs to a family and the objective self aligns with a family, which is often different. This fits in perfectly with the concept of essence or entity as a multidimensional source-self that follows its own innate intent, while manifesting multiple focus personalities that can follow variations of intent and a wide range of physical experiences.

Also, Elias expands the concept of essence families by assigning a unique intent name and a color to each of the nine:

family name	pronunciation	intent	color
Sumafi	Su-ma’-fi	(Seers)	black
Milumet	Mil’-u-met	(Watchers)	red
Gramada	Gra-ma’-da	(Formers)	orange
Vold	Vold	(Hearers)	yellow
Ilda	Il’-da	(Tellers)	green
Sumari	Su-ma’-ri	(Speakers)	blue
Tumold	Tu’-mold	(Readers)	indigo
Zuli	Zu’-li	(Imagers)	violet
Borledim	Bor’-le-dim	(Bearers)	pink

IIIb. Counterpart relationships

Seth also introduced the concept of “counterparts” in Jane Roberts’s ESP class of November 18, 1974. He developed this idea in conjunction with the nine families of consciousness material. (32)

Together, these concepts help paint a clearer picture of multidimensional personality. Elias expands the concept of counterpart relationships to include individuals, groups, and even essence “families.”

Digests: find out more about:

counterpart action; individual

counterpart action; group

essence families; counterpart action.

IV. Major changes in mass consciousness to be completed by the year 2075

Seth delivered information about a major change in our mass consciousness centering around spiritual themes in Seth Speaks, Chapter 21, (1972), session 586. He introduced the notion that this mass event would be, more or less, completed by the year 2075. (33)

Elias uses the term “shift in consciousness” to describe this same mass event. While he never states the year as 2075, he has said many times that it would be, more or less, completed by the end of the third quarter of the twenty-first century.

Digests: find out more about the shift in consciousness.

There is much more to this story that is just beginning to clarify. Seth and Elias both refer to themselves as “energy personality essences,” or some variation of those three words, and consistently address people by a name different than their given name; Seth terms it an entity name and Elias terms it an essence name. The only other channeled sources of which I am presently aware who do the same thing are Ron Churchman who channels Patel (34), Ted Bair who channels C9 (35), and Serge Grandbois who channels Kris. (36) However, none of these latter sources has produced a body of work that approaches the depth and richness of Jane Roberts or Mary Ennis.

Still, the intent of the entity/essence name is quite clear. It recognizes and acknowledges our subjective source selves; those deeper, nonphysical aspects of our psyche. They do not perceive us as single individuals, but rather as the tip of a multidimensional “iceberg” of personality, where the name refers to the entire iceberg (all of our personalities), not just the tip (the ego). This reveals a depth of perception and understanding lacking in more distorted sources who tend to relate to us as single, ego-based personalities.

[ Go to the top ]

Additional Similarities

One of the most powerful and compelling characteristics shared by Seth and Elias is that of the anti-guru. That is, they consistently turn the focus back upon the individual, sometimes gently and sometimes not so gently forcing us into “the mirror of Self” – that metaphorical place where our expectations, thoughts, emotions, feelings, and desire are all mirrored through our beliefs. As Seth said earlier, if we believe something to be true, it is! As our beliefs change, so too does our perception about what is true. So it is through looking within “the mirror of Self” that we begin to identify and recognize the beliefs that we use to create what is true in our lives.

For example, it is common to say “you hurt my feelings” or “you really pissed me off” but the truth of the matter is that our feelings are the by-products of beliefs we hold, often invisibly. We create our hurt or anger as a result of the way our beliefs filter the energy projected at us by others in the form of words and actions. We have the free will to choose how we respond, to create whatever we desire.

Yet we have been patterned to believe through deeply ingrained cultural belief systems of victimhood that other people create our reality and perception for us. They hurt our feelings! We have the whole damn thing backwards. We hurt our own feelings! Once you understand this fundamental concept, you are on the way to understanding how conscious creation works, if only at the outer ego (egocentric) level.

Another refreshing characteristic shared by Seth and Elias is that they are not trying to win converts, disciples, or followers. Instead, they consistently nurture us to trust our own direct, subjective experiences, the mobility of our consciousness and creativity, to realize that the problems we face are self-created, purposeful, and that all solutions are accessible within “the mirror of Self” and nowhere else. Seth says:

“Do not place the words of gurus, ministers, priests, scientists, psychologists, friends – or my words – higher than the feeling of your own being. You can learn much from others, but the deepest knowledge must come from within yourself. Your own consciousness is embarked upon a reality that basically can be experienced by no other, that is unique and untranslatable, with its own meaning, following its own paths of becoming.

“You share an existence with others who are experiencing their own journeys in their own ways, and you have journeying in common, then. Be kind to yourself and your companions.” (37)

Elias says something similar. He consistently redirects all comers to concentrate upon themselves and how they create their own perception; to notice, identify, recognize, and address their own belief systems. Though we tend to be naturally drawn to any source of wisdom greater than our own like a moth to a flame, after interacting with Elias for any period of time one inevitably is turned, oftentimes kicking and screaming, into “the mirror of Self”:

“I may sit before you all for the next twenty years and expound upon the subjects of how you create your reality and offer you exercises and offer you information, and you shall NOT be accomplishing objectively until YOU are noticing and YOU are offering yourself objectively your own information; for although you believe yourselves to pay close attention to these words, you pay closer attention to your own selves. You pay closer attention to your own experiences and the information that you offer yourself, for this within yourselves is MORE REAL than my offering to you.” [session 259, January 17, 1998]

In other words, thinking, talking about, and reducing post-metaphysical ideas into intellectual constructs without the support of intuitive experience (hyperception again) will only take us part of the way toward understanding conscious creation. By focusing upon our own perception we begin to understand the many ways in which we create every aspect of our lives. This isn’t to promote the selfish, egocentric view so prevalent in our society today but to promote the idea that only through observing and more fully engaging our multidimensional nature will we ever learn how we create our reality and who we really are. Rather than seeking our own answers to health, love, and abundance issues outside of us, we ultimately find the answers within.

Another way to conceptualize this is through the analogy of tasting something. For example, can we ever know the taste of honey by just talking about it? We can intellectualize about its atomic structure, molecular attributes, weight, color, texture, and so on, but until we taste it, we won’t ever know what it tastes like. Similar analogies are used in many perennial traditions to encourage an awareness of direct, subjective perception of these ideas through our inner senses so we that can decide for ourselves what is true and what is illusion.

Earlier I included an excerpt in which Seth says unequivocally that he is not to be considered an infallible source. Using that as a precedent, I took the opportunity to ask Elias the same thing during a private session also attended by my wife, Joanne, in 1998. After all, the Pope of the Catholic Church is considered an infallible source. And many scientists act as though their insights into the nature of reality are infallible because they have been trained to deal with what they believe to be absolute, empirical facts through the lens of five-senses-only perception.

PAUL: “... given that you offer information, in your terms, within the intent of the least distortion, are you to be considered an infallible source? (Elias chuckles, and Paul laughs)

JO: “Can we believe what you tell us? (Laughing)

ELIAS: “I shall express to you that infallible implies an absolute, and in this there may not be any infallible element within consciousness, for there are no absolutes.

“Therefore, I may express to you that the information that I offer to you is correct within its translation and is offered for your understanding of your reality, but as to an expression of infallible, which is your projection of your idea of gods, this would be incorrect, for this is offering the idea that there are certain expressions that may not be changed, and this would not be correct.

“There is no absoluteness within essence. It is merely not possible to be translating to you the lack of absoluteness within the confines of your language, for your language itself implies certain absolutes. This be the reason that I am encouraging of you to be conceptualizing in assimilating this information, for language is a translation which is quite limiting at times.” [session 336, October 27, 1998]

When comparing these two sources of information, the point is not to conclude that Elias is “better” or “worse” than Seth, just as it’s impossible to show that Brahms is a “better” composer than Beethoven. Yet many people seem to jump on one or the other bandwagon, getting lost amid surface level differences in semantics and losing sight of the underlying common elements. But again, it’s not about being better or worse. The Seth and Elias material is complementary. They are not competing bodies of information. In other words, they allow us to discern ever more subtle conceptualizations from each body of work. They play off of each other, amplifying and expanding their respective descriptions of multidimensional reality.

Since it is impossible to ever completely translate subjective reality into objective terms, each source fulfills their intent by offering helpful information about the nature of consciousness geared to help us achieve a deeper understanding of who we are and why we are here, individually and as a people. Neither claims to offer a complete system of thought or to be an infallible source without distortion. So the rest is, ultimately, up to each one of us to figure out for ourselves. As Seth said, “all roads lead to the inner self.” (38) As I like to say, all roads lead to the “mirror of Self.”

[ Go to the top ]

Similarities and Differences: Coincidence, Ripoff, or Evidence of a Larger Principle at Work?

The following is an introduction from Elias that provides some insight into why he is offering information at this time and his relationship to Seth:

Play audio [ 3:37" ]

“This essence is that of Elias, within the family of Sumafi. Within your dimension presently you engage a collective event, which is translated into a global event, which you recognize as a shift in consciousness. Individuals holding no knowledge of information that you have availed yourselves of recognize also this shift. They do not hold an understanding objectively of the workings, so to speak, of this shift in consciousness, but they are aware, as they feel a shifting within themselves and as they notice changes moving throughout your objective creations – a new allowance of subjective information that you have chosen to allow to bleed through into your awareness objectively. It is reflected in all of your creations – all of your arts, all of your sciences, even your religions. There is a growing awareness.

“This [information regarding a shift] has been presented to you individuals previously by another [Seth/Jane Roberts]. Now this family of Sumafi continues the information, to be detailing to you helpfulness within understanding of this shift in consciousness and the role objectively that you have chosen to engage within helpfulness in preventing trauma; for you move from your religious era into a new creation of consciousness within your dimension, within this planet.” [session 185, June 21, 1997] (39)

At this point it’s time to stop speculating and put this comparison to the acid test. The following table highlights the similarities and differences between the information offered by Seth/Jane Roberts and Elias/Mary Ennis in greater detail. The extant Seth/Jane books are listed so that concepts can be found in their indices. Each Elias concept is linked to a Digest that contains a greater depth than is to be found in any single transcript. If you still have serious doubts about the complementary relationship between these two sources, the following research – the result of over twenty-six years of studying Seth and five years of studying Elias – will make or break my case.

Seth’s version Elias’ version you make your own reality The Nature of Personal Reality you create your reality   physical reality as camouflage Seth Speaks, The “Unknown” Reality, Vol. 1 & 2 physical reality as imagery camouflage   belief systems The Nature of Personal Reality belief systems   following impulses & spontaneity The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events following impulses & spontaneity   the magical approach & effortlessness & trust of self The Magical Approach effortlessness trusting self   assembly line time (clock time) & natural time The Magical Approach cultural time/natural time   simultaneous time The Nature of Personal Reality The Education of Oversoul Seven simultaneous time   value fulfillment Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment, Vol. 1 & 2 value fulfillment   world views The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher, The World View of William James; The World View of Paul Cézanne, A Psychic Interpretation energy deposits (world views) tissue capsules & energy fields The Seth Material, Ch. 19 energy fields   dis-ease The Nature of Personal Reality, The Way Toward Health dis-ease & healing   fallibility of Seth The Early Sessions, Vol. 2, session 47 fallibility of Elias   energy personality essence The “Unknown” Reality, Vol. 1 energy personality essence   9 inner senses The Seth Material, Ch. 19, The Early Sessions, Vol. 1 & 2 3 primary inner senses; 4 secondary   the mechanics of transition Seth Speaks, Chap. 11 the action of transition   inner sense; psychological time The Seth Material, The Early Sessions, Vol. 1 inner sense; differential time psychological time psyche & source-self & inner self & entity Adventures in Consciousness, The Nature of the Psyche