Over the years that I have researched the many aspects of life after death, I have come across many descriptions of God. Religion, of course, has their own conception of God, but this is a God conceptualized by man. I am far more interested in God as described by personalities that are no longer focused in our three-dimensional reality. Even these residents of the afterlife don’t claim to know all of what God is, but I have found many similarities in these descriptions. For example, most people who have near-death experiences describe God not as a person, but an energy, most often the energy of love. I’ve heard the terms “source energy”, and “universal love”, and “unity consciousness” often.
Although mediumship and channeling are both ways to receive information from the non-physical dimension, their purposes are different. Mediumship is usually concerned with messages from recently deceased humans who are existing in the realm that directly follows physical life. Channelers, however, speak for entities who are considered more highly evolved and are concerned primarily with teaching or guidance. These entities may have been human at some point, but are no longer incarnating on the physical plane.
Unfortunately, my list of channeled entities that I trust as real and accurate is pretty short – in fact, there are only two so far that I regard as most likely real. There are some that I haven’t decided on yet, and some channelers that I absolutely feel are charlatans. In the near future, I will post on my opinions about different popular channels. For now, however, I will quote the two channels that I do give credence to. And while I will never claim to believe in anything 100% unless I’ve had a direct experience, these two channelers have my faith in their veracity.
The best way to try to glean the truth about the realm of the afterlife/non-physical dimension, is to look for patterns and repetition. One would presume that highly-evolved entities would agree with one another about the basic tenets of reality, even if they use different symbolism and terminology. If a channeled message comes through and says “You are living in a simulation and what you call God is a race of aliens who programmed you.” Well, I would be a little suspect. Not because it’s not believable, but because I haven’t seen the message repeated by all of the other channelers and mediums out there. Repetition and patterns cannot prove that something is true, but it makes me feel more confident about the message if I hear it repeated in many different scenarios when researching life after death. Of course, that doesn’t mean that a well-read and researched fraud may not simply parrot the most widely-accepted metaphysical views on the subject. Thus, the difficulty in separating truth and fiction in the world of life after death research!
Even if you do feel that a channeler is honest and is producing material from a higher source, always keep a little bit of doubt in the back of your mind. Look for contradictions. If you find them, research further. Never be afraid to be wrong about something you once believed in. Don’t let pride blind you, and never stop searching for your spiritual truth.
One of the most profound descriptions of God that I’ve read comes from Seth, a non-physical being that was channeled by Jane Roberts in the 60’s and 70’s. Seth and Jane’s works are so important that they deserve own post, perhaps even several, dedicated to them. Seth wrote many volumes of books through Jane, and the work stands on its own as some of the most amazing metaphysical books ever written. Jane dedicated two and a half decades to producing the many books attributed to Seth, even while publishing her own very different brand of fiction under her own name (she was a writer by trade). She never sought to get rich, preferring rather to stay semi-reclusive. She tested Seth, and was tested herself, as she was before anyone, the most skeptic of her channeling. She continued to channel even on her deathbed, and her dedication to the material rather than any impulse to try to exploit her abilities for monetary gain lends credibility to the work.
Once you read the material it becomes very obvious that the concepts are esoteric and complex beyond what I think anyone could reasonably falsify on demand. If Jane could create these concepts on her own merit, there would be no reason to attribute them to a ‘spirit’, as she would have gotten more fame and fortune by claiming these ideas as her own and becoming a spiritual teacher. Instead, Jane simply dedicated her life to giving Seth a voice, living a quietly with her husband in a rural new york town. The first book, Seth Speaks, changed my life.
Here is Seth’s astounding description of God, from “Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul”. Seth’s term for God is “All That Is”.
SETH, Channeled by Jane Roberts
Now — and this will seem like a contradiction in terms — there is nonbeing. It is a state, not of nothingness, but a state in which probabilities and possibilities are known and anticipated but blocked from expression. Dimly, through what you would call history, hardly remembered, there was such state. It was a state of agony in which the powers of creativity and existence were known, but the ways to produce them were not known.This is the lesson that All That Is had to learn, and that could not be taught. This is the agony from which creativity originally was drawn, and its reflection is still seen.
Some of this discussion is bound to be distorted, because I must explain it to you in terms of time as you understand it. So I will speak, for your benefit, of some indescribably distant past in which these events occurred. All That Is retains memory of that state, and it serves as a constant impetus — in your terms — toward renewed creativity. Each self, as a part of All That Is, therefore also retains memory of that state. It is for this reason that each minute consciousness is endowed with impetus toward survival, change, development, and creativity. It is not enough that All That Is, as a primary consciousness gestalt, desires further being, but that each portion of It also carries this determination. Yet the agony itself was used as a means, and the agony itself served as a impetus, strong enough so that All That Is initiated within Itself the means to be.
If – and this is impossible – all portions but the most minute last “unit” of All That Is were destroyed, All That Is would continue, for within the smallest portion is the innate knowledge of the whole. All That Is protects Itself, therefore, and all that It has and is and will create. When I speak of All That Is, you must understand my position with in It. All That Is knows no other. This does not mean that there may not be more to know. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like It may exist. It is not aware of them if they do exist. It is constantly searching. It knows that something else existed before Its own primary dilemma when It could not express Itself.
It is conceivable, then, that It has evolved, in your terms, so long ago that It has forgotten Its origin, that It has developed from still another Primary which has — again, in your terms — long since gone Its way. So there are answers that I cannot give you, for they are not known anywhere in the system in which we have our existence. We do know that within the system of our All That Is, creation continues and developments are never still. We can deduce that on still other layers of which we are unaware, the same is true.
The first state of agonized search for expression may have represented the birth throes of All That Is as we know It. Pretend, then, that you possessed within yourself the knowledge of all the world’s masterpieces in sculpture and art, that they pulsed as realities within you, but that you had no physical apparatus, no knowledge of how to achieve them, that there was neither rock nor pigment nor source of any of these, and you ached with the yearning to produce them. This, on an infinitesimally small-scale, will perhaps give you, as an artist [this was addressed to Rob, Jane’s husband], some idea of the agony and impetus that was felt.
Desire, wish, and expectation rule all actions and are the basis for all realities. Within All That Is, therefore, the wish, desire, and expectation of creativity existed before all other actuality. The strength and vitality of these desires and expectations then became in your terms so insupportable that All That Is was driven to find a means to produce them. In other words, All That Is existed in a state of being, without the means to find expression for It’s being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this “period” of contracted yearning, All That Is could concentrate It’s energy sufficiently enough to create the realities that existed and probable suspension with in It. The agony and desire to create represented Its proof of Its own reality. The feelings, in the other words, were adequate proof to All That Is that It was.
At first, in your terms, all the probable reality existed as nebulous dreams within the consciousness of All That Is. Latter, the unspecific nature of these “dreams” grew more particular and vivid. The dreams became recognized one from the other until they drew the conscious notice of All That Is. And with curiosity and yearning, All That Is paid more attention to Its own dreams. It then purposefully gave them more and more detail, and yearned toward this diversity and grew to love that which was not yet separate from itself. It gave consciousness and imagination to personalities while they still were but within Its dreams. They also yearned to be actual.
Potential individuals, in your terms, had consciousness before the beginning or any beginning as you know it, then. They clamored to be released into actuality, and All That Is, in unspeakable sympathy, sought within Itself for the means.
In Its massive imagination, It understood the cosmic multiplication of consciousness that could not occur within that framework. Actuality was necessary if these probabilities were to be given birth. All That Is saw, then, an infinity of probable, conscious individuals, and foresaw all possible developments, but they were locked within It until It found the means. This was in your terms a primary cosmic dilemma, and one with which It wrestled until All That It Was was completely involved and enveloped within that cosmic problem.
Had It not solved it, All That Is would have faced insanity, and there would have been, literally, a reality without reason and the universe run wild.
The pressure came from two sources: from the conscious but still probable individual selves who found themselves alive in a God’s dream, and from the God who yearned to release them. On the other hand, you could say that the pressure existed simply on the part of the God since the creation existed within It’s dream, but such tremendous power resides in such primary pyramid gestalts that even their dreams are endowed with vitality and reality.
This, then, is the dilemma of any primary pyramid gestalt: It creates reality. It also recognized within each consciousness the massive potential that existed. The means, then, came to It. It must release the creatures and probabilities from It’s dream. To do so would give them actuality. However, it also meant “losing” a portion of It’s own consciousness, for it was with in that portion that they were held in bondage. All That Is had to let go. While It thought of these individuals as It’s creations, It held them as a part of Itself and refused them actuality.
To let them go was to “lose” that portion of Itself that had created them. Already It could scarcely keep up with the myriad probabilities that began to emerge from each separate consciousness. With love and longing It let go of that portion of Itself, and they were free. The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation. All That Is, therefore, “lost” a portion of Itself in that creative endeavor. All That Is loves all that It has created down to the least, for It realizes the dearness and uniqueness of each consciousness which has been wrest from such a state at such a price. It is triumphant and joyful at each development taken by each consciousness, for this is an added triumph against that first state, and It revels and takes joy in the slightest creative act of each of Its issues.
It, of Itself and from that state, has given life to infinities of possibilities. From it’s agony, It found the way to burst forth in freedom, through expression, and in so doing it gave existence to individualized consciousness. Therefore it is It rightfully jubilant. Yet all individuals remember their source, and now dream of All That Is as All That Is once dreamed of them. And they yearn toward that immense source…and yearn to set It free and give It actuality through their own creations. The motivating force is still All That Is, but individuality is no illusion. Now in the same way to you give freedom to the personality fragments within your own dreams and for the same reason. And you create for the same reason, and within each of you is the memory of that primal agony — the urge to create and free all probable consciousness into actuality.
I have been sent to help you, and others have been sent through the centuries of your time, for as you develop you also form new dimensions and you will help others.
These connections between you and All That Is can never be severed, and Its awareness is so delicate and focused that It’s attention is indeed directed with a prime creator’s love to each consciousness. This session needs reading many times, for their implications not at first obvious.
Even the overall pyramid gestalt is not static. Most of your God concepts deal with a static God, and here is one of your main theological difficulties. The awareness and experience of this Gestalt constantly changes and grows. There is no static God. When you say, “this is God,” then God is already something else. I am using the term “God” for simplicity’s sake.
All portions of All That Is are constantly changing, enfolding and unfolding. All That Is, seeking to know it Itself, constantly creates new versions of Itself. For the seeking Itself is a creative activity and the core of all action. Entities, being action, always shift in change. There is nothing arbitrary about their boundaries. Some personalities can be a part of more than one entity. Like fish, they can swim and other streams. Within them is the knowledge of all of their relationships.
Any personality can become an entity on its own. This involves a highly developed knowledge of the use of energy and its intensities. As atoms have mobility, so do psychological structures. Consciousness, seeking to know itself, therefore knows you. You, as a consciousness, seek to know yourself and become aware of yourself as a distant individual portion of All That Is. Do not only draw upon this overall energy but you do so automatically since your existence is dependent upon It.
There is no personal God-individual in Christian terms, and yet you two have access to a portion of All That Is, a portion highly attuned to you….there is a portion of All That Is directed and focused within each individual, residing within each consciousness. Each consciousness is, therefore, cherished and individually protected. This portion of overall consciousness is individualized within you. The personality of God as generally conceived is a one-dimensional concept based upon man’s small knowledge of his own psychology. What you prefer to think of as God is, again, and energy gestalt or pyramid consciousness. It is aware of itself as being, for instance, you, Joseph. Is aware of itself as the smallest seed….this portion of All That Is that is aware of itself as you, that is focused within your existence, can be called upon for help when necessary.
This portion is also aware of itself as something more than you. This portion that knows itself as you, and is more than you, is the personal God, you see. Again: this Gestalt, this portion of All That Is, looks out for your interests and may be called upon in the personal manner. Prayer contains its own answer, and if there is no white-haired kind old father-God to hear, then there is instead the initial and ever-expanding energy that forms everything that is and of which each human being is a part.
This psychic gestalt may sound impersonal to you, but since its energy forges [your] person, how can this be?
If you prefer to call the supreme psychic gestalt God, then you must not attempt to objectify him, for he is the nuclei of your cells and more intimate than your breath. You are cocreators. What you call God is the sum of all consciousness, and yet the whole is more than the sum of Its parts. God is more than the sum of all personalities, and Yet all personalities are what He is. There is constant creation. There is within you a force that knew how to grow you from a fetus to a grown adult. This force is part of unique knowledge within all consciousness, and is part of the God within you.
The responsibility for your life and your world is indeed yours. It has not been forced upon you by some outside agency. You form your own dreams, and you form your own physical reality. The world is what you are. It is the physical materialization of the inner selves which have formed it.
ELIAS, Channeled by Mary Enis
The second description of ‘God’ that I wish to present from a little-known channeler Mary Enis, who channels ‘Elias’, described as almost a spiritual successor of Seth. The concepts presented by Elias do not contradict Seth, at least not that I have found by reading the many transcripts available on www.eliasweb.org. Elias claims to know of the essence personality of Seth, but stresses that they are different entities and therefore have different ways of communicating the same information. Their styles do differ, however, the concepts do not. Again, Elias deserves his own post as his material is complex and worth careful treatment, but for now, I would like to share his thoughts on ‘God’.
I shall state to you this evening another boat-rocking concept, in that there was no original god. There is no god, per se. There is what we have discussed previously as The Creating Universal One And Whole, which is named many different names by different essences and by different focuses. This term, as I have stated previously, is an action. This is not a being. In this, I wish you to understand that this action is all of consciousness. It is everything.
You have been familiarized with the term All That Is. This also is correct in terminology, as to consciousness. There is no singularity of consciousness that may be separated out to be designated as god. Therefore, god did not create your planet, or you. You created you, and you also created your planet and your universe. If you wish to place the terminology of god upon any separate entity, you may apply this term to yourselves, for you are!
In session 749, the querant, JOE, asks Elias directly about Seth’s description of All That Is and how it is defined by Elias. It is an interesting look into the way that channeled material may differ but still be fundamentally congruent.
JOE: Okay, that answers a lot. Now I’m going to ask a question of a more philosophical nature.
Elias, in the books dictated by Seth, he talks of All That Is, and he talks of All That Is being, in his terms, a primal gestalt.
Now, in the beginning … and I know that’s a very, very relative term. In Seth’s books, he talks about All That Is basically giving up of himself — and I’m saying “him” just in an explanatory sort of way — giving up of himself to many, many different parts, each basically being granted individuality as a soul. According to Seth, all souls were in the beginning, and none since, and yet different aspects of an individual essence can give freedom to a part of itself. But also, Seth said that this isn’t done lightly.
In reading all of the transcripts … not all the transcripts, but in reading the transcripts, I kind of get the feeling that you’re saying basically the same thing. Can you offer any insight into that, or something along those lines?
ELIAS: Are you wishing of information as to what you have defined as “all that is,” or are you wishing for information concerning the offering of individuality to different aspects of what you have termed to be the soul? (No pause for a response)
I express to you that my identification is merely a difference in terminology, in that Seth has presented this concept of “all that is,” and I express a similar concept in the terminology of “all of consciousness,” which is essentially the same expression.
As to the “individuality of soul,” my identification of this, to not be aligning with or reinforcing of religious beliefs, is incorporated in the terminology of “essence,” which are aspects of consciousness holding individuality and personality expressions, but are also aspects of the whole, so to speak, which is all of consciousness, and cannot be, in a manner of speaking, separated from consciousness as that whole.
Therefore, in this, which direction of discussion are you choosing to be engaging, that of all of consciousness and its function, or that of essence and its identification?
JOE: I think you’ve answered the question without going off in a particular direction, because my intent in the answer to the question was … and this is in part my own, having read all of Seth’s books and having read the transcripts that Vicki sends me all the time, as well as on the Elias website.
I try to correlate between what Seth has said and what you’ve said, and I know, because of the difference in family orientations and the difference just because you are both individuals, as we all are, that you see things a little bit different, but you are both trying to say the same thing. I think, in what you’ve just told me and what I’ve read in Seth, that that’s exactly correct, that you are both saying exactly the same thing, but from your own individual perspectives.
ELIAS: And I may express to you, the presentment of terminology may be different, as directed by the different intents of those essences which are expressing them. Within the offering of information that I express, in conjunction with the intent of this essence, there is an expression of awareness of reinforcement of existing associations of beliefs within your physical dimension.
Now; be understanding, this is not to say that I am expressing a judgment upon any of the expressions of your beliefs or any of the aspects of your beliefs within your physical dimension, for as I have stated, it is recognized that within themselves, they are neutral. They are neither good or bad.
But in this, there are very strongly held associations by many individuals, with respect to certain types of terminologies that trigger automatic associations with certain ideas, philosophies, and strongly held aspects of beliefs, that may be expressing limitations within many individuals within your physical reality.
And in this, there is created by this essence an expression of intention to not be reinforcing those automatic associations which may be creating limitations in the expressions of individuals within your physical focus.
But I may also express to you, essentially the concepts and the information is the same, which has been offered not merely by myself and through the expression of the other essence of Seth, but also [by] many other essences and many other expressions of information which have been offered to you throughout your history.
Okay, but what does all of this mean? Well, the way I understand it, is that what we might consider “God” is the whole of consciousness and the creative energy of the universe. However, as we are part of God and God is a part of us, Elias reminds us that we “are” God. I believe it is all a matter of perspective. Although we comprise the same energy of God, our perspective is limited to a small portion of our consciousness – currently, this lifetime. After we die, we gain a larger perspective, that of our soul, which has had many lifetimes. If we were to merge with a ‘higher’ or more expanded consciousness, we would lose some of our individuality, but gain the wider perspective of the unity consciousness. I believe the highest perspective would be that of God, which has no individuality, per say, but contains the individuality of every person, animal, microbe, photon and probably the consciousness of the vast number of non-physical realms that we can’t even imagine. Although the division is an illusion, the illusion is maintained for the purpose of the continued expansion of consciousness.
I would encourage you to read the ‘Oversoul 7’ series written by Jane Roberts. Besides being an entertaining work of fiction, she uses Seth’s concepts of reincarnation and the ‘oversoul’ in way that makes it easier to understand how we can be a part of the same consciousness and yet maintain a practical separation. In this book, a ‘soul’ is watching over and interacting with several ‘spirits’ that are involved in different lifetimes in different periods on earth. The spirits in each of the lifetimes are a part of the oversoul and the oversoul is a part of each of these spirits. Each has their own perspective, though each of the spirits could rise to the perspective of the oversoul. The oversoul is also a part of an energy collective that continues upward, where the perspective becomes wider and less individualistic. I would assume, all the way up to the unity consciousness.
What about the personal God? The God that we pray to when things go really wrong in our lives, and the God that we thank when we or loved ones are miraculously saved from a terrible fate? Perhaps you are tempted to blame God when things go wrong, or feel like you are being punished. Well, I don’t have the answer, of course, but I’ve never come across a judgmental description of God in my research. Nor have I found that God is responsible for intervening in our lives, for either what we might call positive or negative purposes. I believe God is simply the widest perspective of consciousness, and while that consciousness is present in the smallest cell in our body and knows us intimately, we are also part of it and therefore responsible for ourselves. I do believe we have spirit guides, souls in a higher perspective that help guide us. I feel like I have a personal relationship with my own guides who send me signs when I’m fulfilling my own highest purpose. We also may have higher selves, more evolved aspects of our own soul that have a hand in guiding us. Defining God as the whole of consciousness and energy doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pray, meditate or try to connect with ‘God’, whatever definition you chose to use. If we are a part of God and God is a part of us, then all of the thoughts, feelings, troubles and worries we have are also shared by ‘God’. From a higher perspective, it is likely much easier to understand the purpose of our experiences and connecting to this wider perspective can help us cope with the difficulties of earthly life. Prayer can help us align our energy to our goals, and create a positive intention that can attract positive outcomes in return.
Despite how we have felt about the concept of God in the past, the concept of God as “All That Is” as presented by Seth and Elias can accommodate all aspects of how we feel about God, including the absence. God can be personal, or impersonal. God can be universal energy, or the sum of all consciousness. This is not the enforcer of morality, that admonishes us to follow some arbitrary rules at all time in order to maintain favor with Him. God only asks that we fully experience and appreciate our own consciousness and all of the creativity that comes with it. We are expected to experience the full spectrum – the good and the bad, for it is not God who judges us, but we who judge ourselves. “All That Is” does not require us to believe in it, just to believe in ourselves. For through our creativity and expansion, all of consciousness benefits – including God itself.
4 thoughts on “A Description of ‘God’, by Two Non-Physical Entities”
[…] See also my post A Description of God by Two Non-Physical Entites […]
Well…Wow! thank you. this is going to take time to sort thru the different layers of my psyche. It’s like find the holy grail.
All i’d read was Th nature of personal Reality where i concluded from it structure that it wasn’t written by a human. I have an edited version of it with only Seth words excerpted. I don’t know how to attach docs or i can do so in this format.
This now also made sense of the christian trinity as i’d read in Mister Echart. Father and son are clear but now i understand Holy spirit as the Love of each to the other.
I can’t thank you enough for this. Now what is it to in my life be responsible for this?
Robert Monroe is one of my confirming people for Seths statements. Below are 2 links that u can download a couple of pages i transcribed from his 2 later books. Obviously the books have much more. This was a distillation, or wisdom of his.
From the remarkable description of Seth’s that u posted it came to me that the Christian trinity, as i understand it from Mister Echart, is the best short hand description of this. With the Holy spirit being “by the eternal generation of the Son the Father becomes conscious of Himself, and the Love reflected back to the Father by the Son is the Holy Spirit. Together with the Son the God also begets the ideal forms of created things.
Here is a link to my excerpted
Seth, The nature of personal reality.
I’m so grateful that u put up the Seth and Elias posting. it’s completed my life so to say.
Am not wishing this to be posted is. If you wish to contact me ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Thank you very much! What a lot of work to put together those transcripts. I’ll download them shortly. By the way, you read my mind! I was reading Personal Reality and I was thinking to myself, “boy, I’d really like a version of this without all of the notes in it like the first book was.” I really appreciate it, I know you put time and work into this and I will enjoy them!