Reality Creation Chairs Bumps, Hoses and Snakes

[jbseth]

Hi All,

To me, one of the most incredible concepts that Seth shared with the world is his explanation of how reality creation actually works. Along with this, there are some pretty interesting implications having to do with how this reality creation can impact us. Below, I've captured some interesting comments made by Seth along these lines. Then at the end of this page, I have a question for you about this topic.



Reality Creation:
As far as reality creation, (see The Early Sessions, Book 2, Session 68) basically, Seth says that it works like this; if Jane, Rob and their cat Willie, were in room with a chair, then there would be 3 rooms, one created by Jane, one created by Rob and one created by Willie. Furthermore, each one of these 3 rooms would contain Jane, Rob, Willie the cat, and the chair. I know this is incredible, right.

Seth also talks about reality creation in TES2: S63 (The Early Sessions, Book 2, Session 63). Here's what Seth says in TES2: S63:

"I told you that without telepathy language would be meaningless and ineffective. It is true that each of you constructs his own physical universe, and responds to it. It is also true however, that through continuous telepathy you are acquainted with the ideas of others concerning their approximate physical universes; and while you construct and see your own, you also construct any given material object taking into consideration its approximate size, width, thickness and location, as received through telepathy from others.

Nevertheless, the objects are simply not the same objects. You do not see, feel, smell or touch the same object. I will shock you further by stating that, in your terms, the objects do not even exist in the same space, but in the personal self-perspective space, formed and created by any given individual."










Objects like Chairs:

TES:2, S63:
"Almost every child suspects that at one time or another when his eyes are closed his immediate surroundings have disappeared. He supposes that when he does not see a chair the chair does not exist; and my dear friends, the boy in this case is smarter than the man."

TES:2, S64:
"The chair, as constructed by Ruburt, is constructed constantly when he is in the room. It is partially constructed by him when he is in another room in your apartment.
When he is not at all concerned with the chair, he does not bother to construct it. He could be miles away, suddenly imagine this room, and instantly construct the chair. If he did, and someone else were present in the room, they would not see it, for you are only aware of your own constructions."


So, I guess just like the child with his eyes closed, when we are somewhere else, like at a movie theatre, and we're not thinking about it, what Seth is saying here is that we apparently don't construct our place of residence. This is interesting.






Bumping into a Chair:

TES:2, S64:
"That same chair, so to speak, is constructed differently by everyone who enters your home. The question of its location in space is not difficult. Inner telepathic ground communication covers this very nicely. There are rather amusing slip-ups here that do occur, as when you bunk into a chair, for example. The fault here not being forgetful. It is remembering that causes the trouble.
(Here Jane smiled broadly.)
"You forget" (in quotes); that is, you forget to construct the chair in its correct location. If you continued to ignore the lapse of construction, you would not suffer the bruise. But you remember just in time, construct your chair where your knee is."


I accidently shut the door on my finger yesterday. Ouch. Now, did I shut the door on my finger, or did I remember just in time and construct the door where my finger was. 


The First Person to see an Object Creates the Initial Construction:

TES:2, S64:
"I was concerned at the time with other data. However we will go into this now. First, you and Philip and Ruburt, when you are all present in the room, each construct from energy your own physical materialization of the idea, television set."

TES:2, S64:
"This needs brief explanation. If the three of you turn your attention to the set, the first one to consider it will form the so-called initial construction."



The Hose or Snake:
TES:2, S64:

"Now, due to variations existing in the capacity of various individuals to receive, perceive, and act upon such information, no constructions are exactly the same, though generally they appear the same; and for utility's sake they are effective enough.

Slip-ups can occur along any of the above mentioned lines. A thick black rubber hose in a backyard after dark for a moment actually becomes, or could become, to a timid soul a particularly vicious, ridiculously long and fat black snake.

This is not a case of a hose looking like a snake. This is a failure of a different sort, according to whether or not the constructor of the hose is present or still constructing his object. There is something here that I will explain. I have briefly mentioned before, I believe, what I will term an afterimage. When you cease active construction of an object, the pattern begins to fade but remains inactive.

Weak vibrations are present and can be perceived. Here we will imagine the weak pattern—form of the hose, and an individual perceiving the generalized pattern. There is a lack of further data, no telepathic message being perceived perhaps.

Going upon the little information at hand, given the darkness, fears come to the foreground. The individual actually constructs a snake, but a faulty impossible one, from the weak hose pattern. The snake, for reasons that we will discuss later, under these conditions could not exist in your universe.

If our individual calls for help, and if per chance the constructor of the hose answers the appeal, his hose construction would take precedence, filling its old pattern."



Question:
Do you believe that this is how we actually create reality?
If not, what do you think occurs?


jbseth

[Sena]

It is also true however, that through continuous telepathy you are acquainted with the ideas of others concerning their approximate physical universes; and while you construct and see your own, you also construct any given material object taking into consideration its approximate size, width, thickness and location, as received through telepathy from others.

jbseth.
Thanks for bringing up this important topic. I agree with Seth that the telepathic aspect is very important. I'll try to illustrate this using the example of the game of cricket. I realize that you are American and not familiar with the game, so I'll try to explain things as I go on.

Cricket is a game which requires dry weather. If there is rain of significant intensity, the authority in charge will stop the play until the rain has ceased. One reason for this is that if the pitch (ground) gets wet, that may help the side which is bowling, and disadvantage the side which is batting.

At present, the Indian cricket team is touring England. They played a match over 5 days. On the first day it rained so much that no play was possible. On the second day, everybody knew that the team which bowled first would have the advantage because of the previous day's rain. At the beginning of the game a coin is tossed, and the captain who calls the toss correctly can decide whether to bowl or bat first.

There were many Indian spectators at the game, but they were obviously out-numbered by the English spectators. If I understand Seth correctly, the outcome of tossing a coin is not a matter of pure chance. The spectators at the event could have a telepathic influence on which way the coin falls. I assume that if a larger number of spectators (English) want their captain to win the toss, they will be able to overcome the telepathic intentions of the minority Indians. This is what happened. The coin favored the English captain, he decided to bowl first, and England won the match (by a very wide margin).

P.S. I realize that influencing the fall of a coin is technically telekinesis (or psychokinesis,PK) rather than telepathy, but I assume that the same principle would apply.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

Thanks for your reply.

You bring up some interesting points about individual and mass reality creation.

Using your example of English vs. Indian spectators at a game of cricket, how do you think that this would work. If there were always more English spectators, than Indian spectators, then wouldn't the English always win the coin toss?  Does that really occur? What about the people who are watching the game on TV or on the internet. Do they influence the outcome of the coin toss? How about the people themselves, does everyone have the same PK skill level? Is that a factor?

I'm not expecting you to answer any of these questions, this is just "food for thought".


By the way, I saw some people playing cricket in a field the other day, and it really made me want to stop and watch. Unfortunately I was running errands at the time and I didn't have the time to stop. Seeing people play cricket here in Oregon is extremely rare, and that's too bad.

Several years ago I had a co-worker friend who spent some time in South Africa, and he told me the basics of how the game is played. I don't remember all the details but it sure sounds like a lot of fun.


jbseth

[Sena]

If there were always more English spectators, than Indian spectators, then wouldn't the English always win the coin toss?

Hi jbseth,
I am speculating here, but I agree that numerical superiority cannot be the only factor. The emotions of the spectators is important. This game was played at Lord's cricket ground, which has emotional meaning for English people as "the home of cricket". My main point is that if Seth is correct about consciousness creating reality, then the toss of a coin will not give a purely random chance result.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

I agree. I'm not sure there is any randomness in these type of events in Seth's concepts.
Especially if you consider his concept of probable realities.

I can see how if it was played in the Lord's cricket ground, then there would have been some special emotion behind the contest.  Were you rooting for the English team or the Indian team?

jbseth

[Sena]

Hi Sena,

I agree. I'm not sure there is any randomness in these type of events in Seth's concepts.
Especially if you consider his concept of probable realities.

I can see how if it was played in the Lord's cricket ground, then there would have been some special emotion behind the contest.  Were you rooting for the English team or the Indian team?

jbseth

Hi jbseth,

I lived in England for 20 years, so I was rooting for the England team although I now live in Sri Lanka, much closer to India. I think living in England helped me to become more open-minded. If I hadn't lived there it is unlikely that I would have become interested in the Seth teachings. There are several members here from the UK, but none from India as far as I know. There are millions of English speakers in India and there is an Indian branch of Amazon, so accessing the Seth books should not be difficult for them.

[LarryH]

If one could collect 1,000 of these coin tosses and correlate the result to whether the game was home or away, it might show whether or not the crowd is influencing the coin tosses. I am not a statistician, so I don't know at what point an increase from 500 in favor of the home team would be statistically significant. But that expertise and access to the statistics could reveal something. There is no doubt that home teams have an advantage, but common belief is that it is due mostly to crowd cheering and booing affecting both teams' performance.

That being said, when I was a young teenager, I tried to make a coin flip heads through intention. I did it 11 times in a row, the twelfth time being tails. That 11 times result had a chance of 1 in 2048. I have not tried it since, probably because I wanted to retire on top.

[jbseth]

Hi Larry H,

Wow. Eleven times in a row. That's pretty amazing.

I'm curious. As you think about that experience today, do you believe that you were successful in your intention?

jbseth

[LarryH]

If I had flipped the coin with no intention and it had come out that way, that would just be a 1 in 2,048 coincidence. That coincidence in alignment with intention suggests that intention had an influence. So yes.