Does the brain exist in Framework 2?

[Sena]

Seth gives a remarkably clear and subtle answer to this question in The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events:

"In simple terms, your body has an invisible counterpart in Framework 2."

If the body has a counterpart in Framework 2, then clearly the brain also has such a counterpart in Framwork 2. This is subtly different from saying that the brain exists in Framework 2. The full paragraph in which Seth's statement appears may be worth a close study:

"In simple terms, your body has an invisible counterpart in Framework 2. During life that counterpart is so connected with your own
physical tissues, however, that it can be misleading to say that the two — the visible and invisible bodies — are separate. In the same way that your thoughts have a reality in Framework 2, and only for the sake of a meaningful analogy, thoughts could be said to be the equivalent, now, of objects; for in Framework 2 thoughts and feelings are far more important even than objects are in physical reality."

Seth goes on to say:

"Framework 2 is not neutral, but automatically inclined toward what we will here term good or constructive developments. It is a growth medium. Constructive or "positive" feelings or thoughts are more easily materialized than "negative" ones, because they are in keeping withFramework 2's characteristics.
If that were not the case, your own species would not have existed as long as it has."

What I understand from this is that, by being aware of Framework 2, we can direct our life into a better situation.

[Sena]

Does telepathy involve brain-to-brain communication?

My understanding of Seth is that ALL cells possess the ability of telepathic communication with one another. The brain is obviously composed of cells, so the brain is involved in telepathy, but this is not restricted to the brain:

"Biology has made many strides, but it must finally be concerned with that intangible which is behind all organisms, and it will be forced to the initiation of an entirely new field, along the lines of basic organic psychology. It will be forced to recognize the innate ability of all cells for what we may call telepathy, for there will be no other solution in answering many questions.

In the most simple of living structures telepathy is a necessity for communication, particularly before the inside energy is concentrated sufficiently to form any sort of more complicated pattern or nerve structure. Even when such nerve structures and physical complications are evolved telepathy operates, still a necessity as a communications system within the physical structure, and still handling data which cannot be carried through any physical medium, simply because it is untranslatable by its nature into physical materialization.

These points are all extremely important."

"Telepathy on this level is the intangible, nonmaterial communication of inner energy, or inside energy, to the physical materialization of itself within the physical field. This elementary telepathy is not the communication of thought as such, but is the communication of intent, desire and purpose."

"The ego considers itself the self, and considers anything outside of its self as being either nonself or another such separate identity, and so the individual man is led to believe that telepathy is basically a communication between two or more basically alone, separate and aloof selves. Telepathy does not operate at the level of the ego, although its actions may protrude into the domain of the ego. Telepathy operates within the inner self, within various levels, different levels of the subconscious, where the ideas of separation and limitations of self are not nearly so limiting."

—The Early Sessions, vol.3, Session 121 January 13, 1965

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

In your initial post on this topic, you quote Seth from, "The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events", and as per this quote, Seth says:

"In simple terms, your body has an invisible counterpart in Framework 2."

Then, following this quote, you make the statement, "If the body has a counterpart in Framework 2, then clearly the brain also has such a counterpart in Framework 2."

This is an assumption that you are making. Seth did not say anything about the brain in his quote above, he was only talking about the body.




If I were to carry your assumption even further, I could also say that "If the body has a counterpart in Framework 2, then clearly, the organs, the eyes, the skin, etc. also must have a counterpart in Framework 2."  However, I don't think that any of these assumptions are necessarily valid.

Seth describes himself as an "energy essence personality". In order for Seth to exist, does he need eyes, skin, organs, a brain, or even a body? In Seth Speaks, Chapter 6, Session 528, where Seth in talking about the Soul (or entity) he says the following:

"It goes without saying then that the soul does not require a physical body for purposes of perception; that perception is not dependent upon physical senses; that experience continues whether or not you are in this life or another; and also that the soul's basic methods of perception are also operating within you now even as you read this book. It also follows that your experience within the physical system is dependent upon a physical form and physical senses — again, because these interpret reality and translate it into physical data. It also follows that some hints of the soul's direct experience can be gained by momentarily switching the physical senses off — by refusing to use them as perceptors, and falling back upon other methods. Now you do this to some extent in the dream state, but even then in many dreams you still tend to translate experience into hallucinatory physical terms. Most of the dreams that you recall are of this nature.  "


In Seth Speaks, Chapter 9 The "Death" Experience, Session 535, Seth says the following:

(10:20.) You will find yourself in another form, an image that will appear physical to you to a large degree, as long as you do not try to manipulate within the physical system with it. Then the differences between it and the physical body will become obvious.


Along with this, in this same book and chapter, in Session 537, Seth also says the following:

(10:07.) All of these circumstances then may or may not occur according to the individual involved. However, after leaving the physical body, you will immediately find yourself in another. This is the same kind of form in which you travel in out-of-body projections, and again let me remind my readers that each of them leaves the body for some time each night during sleep.

This form will seem physical. It will not be seen by those still in the physical body however, generally speaking. It can do anything that you do now in your dreams. Therefore it flies, goes through solid objects, and is moved directly by your will, taking you, say, from one location to another as you may think of these locations.

If you wonder what Aunt Sally is doing in, say, Poughkeepsie, New York, then you will find yourself there. However, you cannot as a rule manipulate physical objects. You cannot pick up a lamp or throw a dish. This body is yours instantly, but it is not the only form that you will have. For that matter, this image is not a new one. It is interwound with your physical body now, but you do not perceive it. Following death, it will be the only body you are aware of for some time.

(Pause at 10:15.) Much later and on many levels you will finally learn to take many forms, as you choose, consciously. In one manner of speaking you do this now, you see, translating your psychological experience — your thoughts and emotions — quite literally but unconsciously into physical objects. You may find that when you imagine yourself as a child — after death — that you suddenly have the form of the child that you were. For a certain period of time, therefore, you can manipulate this form so that it takes any appearance that it had when it was connected with your physical form in the immediately previous physical life. You may die at eighty and after death think of the youth and vitality that you had at twenty, and find then that your form changes to correspond with this inner image.

Most individuals after death choose a more mature image that usually corresponds to the peak physical abilities, regardless of the age when the physical peak was reached. Others choose instead to take the form they had at the particular point when the greatest mental or emotional heights were achieved, regardless of the beauty or age that characterized the form. Do you follow me?

[... 1 paragraph ...]

You will feel comfortable with the form that you choose, therefore, and you will usually use it when you want to communicate with others you have known; though for such communications with the living, you may instead adopt the form you had when you were known to the individual you want to contact.


Here's the thing, in Seth's initial quote:

"In simple terms, your body has an invisible counterpart in Framework 2."

I think that he was only talking about the physical body and its other invisible counterpart forms that exist in Framework 2.  I don't think that he was necessarily implying anything about the brain, the organs, the eyes, the skin, etc. also having a counterpart in Framework 2.

Why do I think this? Because I'm not sure that there exists a need for any of these other things (brain, organs, eyes, skin, etc.) to exist along with the body that we have in Framework 2.


jbseth

[LarryH]

The Framework 2 counterpart of the brain may simply be the mind or consciousness of the personality - the method by which it processes the sensed inputs in that reality as well as the method by which it thinks and emotes.

[Deb]

"In simple terms, your body has an invisible counterpart in Framework 2."

Here's how I see it (I hope I can put this into words):

I think Seth would have been clearer if he had said "your physical form has a non-physical counterpart in F2." I think the word body was misleading. F1 is a physical existence. Our body, as a whole, is needed so we can function in this level of existence the way a space suit allows an astronaut to survive in space. The mind is the interface with the inner self and maybe even the soul and more. The actual brain, that chunk of matter in our skulls, is physical and just one component of the body, along with our sensory organs, bones, muscle, etc.

"The problem comes when  you try to categorize consciousness or being. The out-of-body state, in your terms, is a far more natural state than in the body. You adopt and make a body. You do this now without knowing that you do so, but a body can be made from the camouflage of any system, constructed easily when you know how to do it.

"Space suits are therefore an inadequate, clumsy memory of an inner ability to clothe the inner self with whatever camouflage is at hand. To merge with the elements of an environment in such a way that you become a living part of it."
—TPS2 Session 604 January 12, 1972

F2 is non-physical. No senses are needed. The mind is not physical, it is not the brain, it is consciousness. I feel the brain is physical, the mind is the counterpart made of entirely different stuff, but still a part of the whole. Software interprets and runs the programs it receives from the coder. A tv shows the signals it receives from a transmitter. And with that in mind, when the signal is broken or the tv breaks, the transmitter could transmit to a new tv—reincarnation? I oversimplified, I think.

Communication in F2 is telepathic, no voices, ears, eyes necessary. No brain necessary to interpret data. We need those things here in F1 because we are limited to the physical world.

"The brain is of your plane. You may say that the brain is the mind in camouflage. Imagination belongs to the mind. It can be used by and is used by the brain for purposes of survival, and can sometimes be probed by physical instruments. That is physical instruments can be made to make the imagination move on occasion. But imagination is a property of mind, not brain, and no physical tool can force the imagination to conceive of an original conception or idea."

"The brain deals exclusively with camouflage patterns, transforming vitality into physical environmental camouflage patterns. The mind deals with basic principles inherent on all planes. The brain is itself part of the camouflage pattern, and can be interpreted and probed by physical instruments. The mind cannot be probed by physical instruments. It cannot even be found by physical instruments. The mind is the connective. It is here that the secrets of the universe will be discovered, and the mind itself is the tool of discovery."

—TES1 Session 19 January 27, 1964

I think about the things I've done in my dreams. I am not seeing with my physical eyes, not tasting, not hearing with my physical ears. But I still go places, walk and talk with people, taste, smell... it seems real enough to me, sometimes even better than real.

However, after leaving the physical body, you will immediately find yourself in another. This is the same kind of form in which you travel in out-of-body projections, and again let me remind my readers that each of them leaves the body for some time each night during sleep.

This form will seem physical.

The body Seth is talking about here is not an actual physical body, its the astral body, so again he could have been clearer. I  interpret this "body" as a collection of consciousness units or EEs that are related or branded in a way as to represent a unique individual consciousness (the "energy essence personality"). These units are more easily re-formed into different "appearances" based on the mood or thoughts of the individual since F2 doesn't have to deal with energy that's been made material. The communication is clearer and immediate between the units—there is supposedly no lag time in F2 between thought and materialization, unlike here in F1. I think it's a safety measure to keep us noobies from really mucking things up.

Ha ha Larry, I can't believe you were able to sum up pretty much everything in one sentence. 

[Sena]

I think Seth would have been clearer if he had said "your physical form has a non-physical counterpart in F2."

Deb, I think Seth is very precise here. Why should we assume that the counterpart in F2 is non-physical?

The body Seth is talking about here is not an actual physical body, its the astral body, so again he could have been clearer.

This is what Seth said about the astral body:

"There must be a connection however with the physical organism, and the connection, the physical connection, is both electrical and chemical. The connection between what you might call materializations, and the physical organism, are also electrical and chemical. The same applies to the connection between the astral body and the physical body."
—TES4 Session 188 September 15, 1965

"The new body is of course not a new body at all, but simply a body not physical in your terms, one that you use in astral projections, one that gives the vitality and strength to the physical body that you know. Your flesh is embedded in it. When you leave the physical body, the other body is quite as real to you, and seems as physical, although it has many more freedoms. You can do things with it that you cannot do with the physical body, for example." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 9 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

From the Kindle edition: http://amzn.eu/9ihoQQ1

A body not physical in our terms, but could be physical in a higher dimension.

[Deb]

Why should we assume that the counterpart in F2 is non-physical?

Because I envision F1 as a physical realm, F2 as non-physical realm. And even because of statements like this:

The new body is of course not a new body at all, but simply a body not physical in your terms,

Not physical in OUR terms.

A body not physical in our terms, but could be physical in a higher dimension.

The definition of physical in F2 vs how we define physical in F1? Well, I suppose so. I hadn't thought of that.

Maybe I need to do more research into how physical is defined in the Seth materials, and what existence is like in F2. Seth's comment about his (14th century?) desk and study make me wonder how that all works.

[Sena]

The definition of physical in F2 vs how we define physical in F1? Well, I suppose so. I hadn't thought of that.

The concept of seven dimensions (or "planes"), physical, astral etc. is found in other esoteric teachings. Not so clear in Seth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(esotericism)

[jbseth]

Hi All,

It seems to me that when Seth said, "a body not physical in your terms", what he actually meant by this, "could" be interpreted in at least 3 different ways.  He could have meant:

1) a body not physical in your terms, or in any other terms,

2) a body not physical in your terms, but physical in some other terms or

3) something else that is different than either one these first two options
(I'm not sure what this 3rd option would be, but I'm open to the possibility that it may exist).


The question is, what did Seth actually mean by this?

Unless Seth said something else on this topic that completely clarifies his position on this, we may never know for certain.

If that's the situation that we have here, then we will ultimately each decide for ourselves what we "think" Seth meant by this statement and when we do this, we probably won't all come to the same conclusion; but this is very much OK and probably how it should be.

I hadn't previously considered the possibility that Seth may have been saying that a physical brain or a physical something could or might exist in Framework 2. While I personally don't think that this is what Seth meant here, when he said this, I really want to thank Sena for bringing that possibility up, to my attention.

jbseth

[Deb]

I haven't come up with a response to the previous post yet, but I found a number of instances where Seth uses the phrase "physical in your terms."

For now I'm just pasting them here for safe-keeping. I also posted a question to Ron Card, I'm curious if he has some insights.

"Consciousness as manifested individually simply adopts various images, though some of these are not physical in your terms. There is nothing so strange at this, since in physical life there is the definite difference between the body form of the child, the young adult, and the old man. You do not think this strange, nor do you think of it as three separate forms, you see."
—TES7 Session 331 April 3, 1967

• "[...] It goes without saying that the hospitals and training centers are not physical in your terms. They are often, in fact, maintained en masse by the guides who carry out the necessary plans. [...]"
—SS Chapter 9: Session 537, June 24, 1970

• "Some projection environments will not, of course, appear physical in your terms, and in your terms will therefore lack the suitable characteristics of reality."

—TES7 Session 328 March 22, 1967

"It is obviously beneficial to learn now to change your own direction of attention away from your physical system. When this is accomplished then legitimate firsthand experience can be gained, that is not physical in your terms."
—TES8 Session 397 March 6, 1968

"In the case of earth the grid of perception is simply used differently, certain areas becoming prominent in some eras, and less prominent in others. Using your idea of time, I can only say that when the entire gestalt of consciousnesses that formed a particular earth have formed its reality to the best of their abilities, fulfilling their individual and mass capacities as far as possible, then they lovingly turn over that grid to others, and continue to take part in existences that are not physical in your terms."
—DEaVF1 Chapter 5: Session 903, February 25, 1980

"In the beginning, then, these units operated both as identities or particles, and as waves. The main concentration was not yet physical in your terms."
—DEaVF1 Chapter 3: Session 889, December 17, 1979

"While all of your own thoughts and feelings are "somewhere" materialized, only some of them become physical in your terms. They are then accepted as physical reality."
—UR2 Section 4: Session 711 October 9, 1974

"You have a focus in many more worlds than you know. One is a conceptual energy force reality which is much more than some theoretical world of ideas, but a reality in which individual energy is used in a constant manipulation of idea or concepts into constructions that, while not physical in your terms, is nevertheless a vivid and actual, concrete field of manipulated and applied force in which matter may be, but is not always, an end result."
—TES3 Session 96 October 12, 1964

[Sena]

a body not physical in your terms, but physical in some other terms or

jbseth, that is my understanding. The physicist Michio Kaku has written that the concept of higher dimensions (higher than the 3 or 4 dimensions that we are usually aware of) is becoming scientifically respectable, but I haven't looked at this closely.

[Sena]

"While all of your own thoughts and feelings are "somewhere" materialized,

Deb, thanks for finding this quote. Seth is quite clear that thoughts are materialized somewhere. Is this "somewhere" Framework 2? Seth seems to be clear that we have to give up the idea that mind is in a different category from body. Mind and body are both manifestations of a deeper reality.

[Deb]

Seth is quite clear that thoughts are materialized somewhere. Is this "somewhere" Framework 2? Seth seems to be clear that we have to give up the idea that mind is in a different category from body. Mind and body are both manifestations of a deeper reality.

That sounds familiar, I'm sure I've seen that somewhere over the past couple of days but can't find the quote right now.

For now, here's the exchange between Ron and me on Facebook:

Deb to Ron Card on Facebook: Hey Ron, we've been discussing Frameworks on Speaking of Seth and whether while F1 is physical, F2 is non-physical, whether the brain exists in F2, whether there are more than the 4 frameworks Seth has mentioned (taking into considerations other systems as well). The question as to whether F2 is non-physical came from Seth's use of "not physical in your terms" regarding the form we take after death. That comment leaves the door open to, what ARE our terms and are their alternate physical forms in the other frameworks that would be considered physical to them, but that we would not understand? In finding some quotes, he's used "not physical in your terms" a minimum of 6 times. Do you have anything to share about all of this?

- - -

Ron: Deb, a complex question with many answers. When you project your consciousness into other worlds and realms of existence, say, in your dream state, you just may "barge" into an adjacent earth reality channel of cable TV earth, so to speak, and from the personalitie's point of view that exist in that adjacent reality, your brief presence is perceived as a UFO, a distorted object.
The same thing happens on this end when "they" stumble into earth's reality, and to them, our reality is somewhat fuzzy and undefined, so they leave. Now this has nothing to do with visitors from other realities, other planets, who visit earth as curiosity seekers and they adjust their vibratory frequency rate to match that of earth's and they "pop" into our visible view of perception. That is, they are not visible but can become visible if desired.

Their consciousness would exist in another framework of reference not compatible with our framework one, you see. Our framework two is the psychological "plastic" state where thoughts mix and merge and are desire-thrust into framework one as physical creation, depending on the intensity of through to actualize such creative activity. Framework two is like a vast consciousness "soup" of thoughts and desires.

Physical in our terms means they exist within our visible spectrum, a very narrow band of light waves from ultraviolet to infrared, you see. Many un-perceivable realities, near infinite one's, exist above and below our visible spectrum. Many dimensions and realms of existence that are beyond our threshold of knowledge, beyond our perception, exist all about us, all existing simultaneously beyond all this as explained. Hard to put into words...ron

- - -

Deb: Thank you for your response Ron, we're still working this one out and there may be some things Seth didn't get around to explaining completely. I'll share this with the forum, your last paragraph is something  I especially want to explore. I learned a bit about the visible spectrum here being a small portion of the entire EM spectrum when I was a paranormal investigator, but had not thought to apply that in terms of these questions (sorry to bombard you!). Thanks again! If anything else comes to mind, please let me know. Deb