Once you allow yourselves to kill you will kill any living thing.

[Deb]

"Until you learn reverence for all living things, you will continue to slaughter each other. Again, this does not involve punishment in any sense of the word, but the idea of killing permissiveness is not discriminating. Once you allow yourselves to kill you will kill any living thing. In future lives this involves the race in further adjustments." (TES1, Sess.32)

Now I have to figure out if pulling weeds out of my garden and thereby killing them is a crime against life? Really?

Your question about pulling the weeds out of your garden and killing them, I suspect is really much deeper than many of us often think about, and I'd say that it warrants discussion as another topic for us to consider. If you'd like to start another topic on this subject, I'd enjoy participating in a discussion on it. 

I will take up that challenge , because I really do want to know if "killing" is ever acceptable.

We all know killing other humans is wrong, and hate is also killing according to Seth. But his comment about "Once you allow yourselves to kill you will kill any living thing" got me thinking how can humans survive without killing some things?

Killing animals is a volatile topic, as vegans and vegetarians are totally against killing animals for food or any other reason. Since Seth introduced me to the concept that everything has consciousness, now I even feel a little weird about eating vegetables. And I'm a big-time gardener. Granted, some fruits and vegetables rely on being eaten in order to reproduce, but not all of them. Am I being a murderer by harvesting and eating my own produce? And then there's the fact that my garden is constantly being invaded by weeds and animal pests: rabbits, squirrels, rats, mice, voles, birds. Insects. Molds. I try to make it more challenging for the animals to decimate my garden, but the weeds here are invasive and will choke out my entire garden in a summer's week if I ignore them. I don't use pesticides at all.

Antibiotics kill germs and bacteria. Sanitizing cookware does the same. Boiling canning jars before I use them as well, as does boiling the food I plan to can.

So, is Seth saying that if I kill a weed or bacteria or a mosquito that is drilling into me, that I'm just one step away from killing a human?

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,


Deb, thanks for starting this topic.     I really want to explore this as well.


Here's some rambling thoughts I've had on this issue of killing.

Regarding Seth and his various discussions on "killing", when you think about it, the obvious issue comes up right away. We need to eat to keep from dying (killing ourselves) and right now, we can't do this without killing something that's alive (animals or plants).

That being said, I suspect that man performs a lot of killing that really isn't necessary. Some of it's done for convenience and in some cases, some of it's done for fun.

But where's the barrier between killing for need and killing for desire, and did Seth really mean absolutely "no" killing of anything? I think he may have actually meant this.

If so, then how are we suppose to accomplish this?

One answer that came to me is that perhaps we should make a push to figure out how to create food from sources other than live plants and animals. I do believe that we may be close to this, within our world's present technical capabilities.


Another thought that came to mind this this, what would a world where man performed minimal or no killing actually look like. What comes to mind is the world of the sleepwalkers / ancient dreamers that Seth talks about in DeaVF1, where man had minimal impact on his environment.

jbseth

[dustytoad]

As a longtime student of the Seth Material I recall Seth mentioning that it is not a violation if one ends up killing out of necessity for sustenance (or non-intentionally, like not seeing the ant or inhaling microbes).  I am assuming this would be similar to any other animal.  Seth talked about respecting all life and spoke out against factory farms and experimenting on animals. He was not one to draw lines and always encouraged us to use our own minds so when it comes to what is needed for our sustenance seems left to each of us to decide.  Being a vegan myself I have formed a way to sustain myself that agrees with my views and values but still try to thank whatever life ends up sustaining me and acknowledging that all life should be respected and not destroyed intentionally without mindfulness and respect, which is a good approach no matter what your habitat and place in the food exchange may be.  This is similar to what Robin Wall Kimmerer discusses as the "honorable harvest" in her book Braiding Sweetgrass".  So I think the reference in the Seth quote refers more specifically to mindlessly and needlessly killing and its implications and reverberations.  It  seems to me that a lot of the Seth Material sets you wondering but in a way that seems to avoid black and white dogmatic answers and keeps you thinking...

[jbseth]

Hi Dustytoad,

Hey, welcome to the forum. 

Yeah, I've seen one or two comments in some of Seth's material where he seems to be taking this kind of stance. What confuses me is that in some of his comments in some of the "Early Sessions" books, he seems to be taking a much more hard line, "No you shouldn't kill anything at all" type of stance.

I'm wondering, I think like Deb, if this really means that we shouldn't even pull a dandelion out of our garden, to protect the flowers or vegetables that we're trying to grow.

I plan to go through the Early Session books and pull out some of the comments that Seth makes in them on killing and post them here so, that we all can take a look at them and try to form some sort of opinion on exactly what he really means.

I have recently seen a couple of statements from Seth that seem to be implying that we shouldn't kill because, when we kill, we are removing a part of All That Is out of our reality.

Again, welcome to the forum.

jbseth


   

[Deb]

Welcome dustytoad!

Killing, except for self preservation, seems to have a price to pay.

"Killing except for self-protection will be paid for. The idea of killing is what is at fault. If you agree with the killing of birds for example, you wind up with the killing of men."
—TES1 Session 32 March 4, 1964

So for example, I have a garden and chickens. After the chickens arrived, rats invaded my property. They live under the concrete slab under the chicken coop, eat all their food, spill all their water. They've bitten my chickens, who have bled excessively. There is no practical deterrent for the rats. If I decide to snap trap the rats to protect my chickens, I am killing them while my survival is not threatened. For me it's more a matter of protecting the chickens and keeping the rat population under control.

Seth has mentioned many times that we as a civilization do rely on animals for meat, and there is a symbiotic relationship between the animals we kill for food and us. Similarly there is the relationship between a cat and the mouse it plays with. He also spoke against mistreatment of animals, how we have lost touch with our relationship to nature.

So I think the reference in the Seth quote refers more specifically to mindlessly and needlessly killing and its implications and reverberations.  It  seems to me that a lot of the Seth Material sets you wondering but in a way that seems to avoid black and white dogmatic answers and keeps you thinking...

I have to agree, thank you. Seth has certainly made me re-examine everything I was raised to believe. While I still don't have a hard core answer to my question, I do realize that Seth wants us to examine our actions and consider our motivation and the consequences.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

In regards to the topic of "killing", in some places, it seems that Seth is actually contradicting himself. Here, I'm referring to what Seth says in TES1, Session 32, and then what he says in NoPR, Chapter 8, Session 634 (see these 2 quotes below).

However, I not really sure that this is really what's going on here either. In DeaVF2, session 916, in his notes prior to the session, Rob was wondering why in recent material, Seth was talking about "invisible particles" and wasn't calling these CU units.

Then, immediately after dictation started for this session, Seth responds to Rob's question.

In Seth's response, he tells Rob that he doesn't want him to become dependent on the terms. Furthermore, he also says that each time he introduces some information, he does so from another direction, so that we, the readers, will approach it from a different angle also (see quote from DeaVF2 below).

I suspect that this is what Seth has done here with the topic of killing and with some of his other topics like karma, for example.



TES1, Session 32

Killing except for self-protection will be paid for.


NoPR, Chpt 8, Session 634

[...] Strictly speaking, the translation from biological language to your own is as given in this session; but the finer discrimination reads thusly: Thou shalt not violate.

[...]

(12:01.) Killing another human being is a violation. Killing while protecting your own body from death at the hands of another through immediate contact is a violation. Whether or not any justification seems apparent, the violation exists.


DeaVF2, Chpt 8, Session 916

Last night, as I began typing Monday's 915th session, I asked Jane why Seth hadn't just called his "invisible particles" CU's, or units of consciousness, as he'd done earlier in Dreams,2 *and as he'd always done in his other books. The question upset her, especially when I added that I was afraid Seth was repeating old material under a new term. In order to help Jane feel better, I speculated that he must have had his reasons for doing this, and that of course a certain amount of repetition is necessary in each book in a series: The restatements not only furnish a foundation for new material, but enable each book to be complete in itself. After all, I said, I try to achieve those same goals with the notes.*3

[...]

Dictation. When Joseph (as Seth calls me) read the last session, he wondered whether or not the invisible particles I referred to were the same as the units of consciousness I have spoken of before.

He was supposed to ask the question, and so was each reader. For one thing, while I realize the importance of specific terms, I do not want you as a reader to become so dependent upon terms that coming across one you have read before, you instantly categorize it. For another thing, each time I reintroduce such information I do so from another direction, so to speak, so that you as a reader are meant to approach it from a different angle also. In that way, you become familiar with certain knowledge from a variety of viewpoints.

jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

I recently put together a rather long list of the various comments that Seth made, on the subject of "killing". I did this so that I could better understand his actual position on this topic.  While this is a long list, it's not a complete list of everything he said on this.

I'm attaching this long list below for any of you who may also want to take a look at this.

Immediately below is a short list of some of the more interesting things that Seth had to say on this subject. I've paraphrased one or two of these for simplicity.

The emotion or emotional value behind killing is often as important as what is killed.

When you kill so much as an ant, so do you kill part of All That Is in most practical terms.

When you kill another man, basically you will end up killing yourself.

If you agree with the killing of birds for example, you wind up with the killing of men.

Until you learn reverence for all living things you will continue to slaughter each other. Again, this does not involve punishment in any sense of the word, but the idea of killing permissiveness is not discriminating. Once you allow yourselves to kill you will kill any living thing.

Value fulfillment would not be achieved in some important directions if man ceased killing because he knew death did not exist. He must cease killing while he believes death does exist. He must solve the problem in the context that it developed.

When it is possible it is not only wise but advantageous to help any living creature, regardless of its stature in your scheme of things.  In such cases it is the value fulfillment, not of the captive so much as the potential savior.


Below is the longer list of some of Seth's comments on the topic of "killing".



ES1:S31

("Why was Jane so upset about the killing of the starlings at the art gallery by the police over the weekend? She wrote a poem about it tonight, and she's going to send it to the newspaper.")

Ruburt was upset and for good reason. That is although in one way the birds that were killed were meeting a natural end, the reason behind this end was wrong in terms of emotional value and he sensed this. It goes without saying that a bird's death is inevitable, but a cat killing a bird does not have to juggle the same sort of values with which man is concerned.

I will not go further into this matter this evening. Suffice it to say that to kill for self-protection or even to kill a natural prey on your plane does not involve you in what we may call for the first time, I believe, karmic consequences.

To kill for nothing more serious than convenience or to kill for the sake of killing involves rather dire consequences on your plane, and the emotion or emotional value behind such killing is often as important as what is killed. That is the lust for killing is also a matter that brings dire consequences regardless of, in many cases, the particular living thing or things that is killed. This involves value judgments of a very important type and I will not go into them tonight. However I am glad you brought the matter up, as I will use it to carry you into realms that we have not begun to cover.



ES1:S32

The same personalities are not always reborn for example in the same race. It is true that your history shows a continuity of Jewish persecutions, that is persecutions of Jews. The fact is that many personalities who have been famous in many eras have also been proud, brilliant and cruel, and have belittled and persecuted those they considered beneath them.

These personalities, often talented in many directions and often with past experiences of wealth and power, choose to be born as Jews of their own volition, and this is a karmic compensation, not in any sense punishment but a needed adjustment on the part of the personalities involved.

The horrible misdeeds committed upon the Jews by the Germans were certainly not asked for specifically. However large numbers of those Jews were Huns of a very cruel variety in a past existence.

The Germans of that particular generation were not revenging past misdeeds. Revenge has no place in this discussion. In one sense there is no excuse for what occurred. The Jewish people have always displayed great financial abilities, these being natural remnants of knowledge of wealth, as in previous lives many of them had positions of power which they misused.

Your generation as a whole had to learn the importance of thought and responsibility. You had to learn that basically to hate is to kill. The lesson was a practical one. The Germans and the Jews made it plain. Had the hatred not existed in the Germans, it could not have been channeled as it was against the Jews. Free will operated here as always.

("Have we learned our lesson?")

You are beginning to learn the lesson. Ruburt's vehement anger over something that seems perhaps much more trivial, the death by shooting of the starlings, is a case in point.

(Upon going to work at the gallery yesterday noon, Jane saw more dead starlings scattered on the lawns. This so incensed her that she telephoned the police. After talking to two different desk sergeants she was referred to the police chief. The chief said she was the only complainant the police had had; other callers had given the police their addresses and asked them to destroy the birds on their own properties.

(Jane also sent two more poems on the subject to the newspaper. The first poem she sent in has been scheduled for publication. The people at the newspaper were quite surprised to learn the police were shooting birds. They said they would check into it.)

Killing except for self-protection will be paid for. The idea of killing is what is at fault. If you agree with the killing of birds for example, you wind up with the killing of men. You will all be taught the sacredness of all life, and in the most practical way.

("How about our killing animals for food?")

On your plane the hunter and the prey system is at this time a necessary one but it will not always be this way. A time will come when you will not have to kill in order to exist, and the balance of nature will take care of itself. This time is sooner on the way than you think. In your country, if there is peace, you will see its beginning in your lifetimes.

(Again, in the sentence above, Jane answered my unspoken question.

("Does this include doing away with slaughterhouses?")

It most certainly does. This involves your own intellectual technology, which will be quite able to maintain its population with synthetic proteins. However this technological development will come first; unfortunately the corresponding ethical evolution will follow after.

There is a very practical reason for a reverence for all life, and very practical reasons why man must learn certain facts that up to this point he has considered impractical. He has usually managed to separate his ethical conceptions from his daily business life, but this shall be increasingly difficult for him to manage.

Until you learn reverence for all living things you will continue to slaughter each other. Again, this does not involve punishment in any sense of the word, but the idea of killing permissiveness is not discriminating. Once you allow yourselves to kill you will kill any living thing. In future lives this involves the race in further adjustments.



ES4:S182   (p217),   (p221 – p222)

[...]

(Speaking of the fact that civilized man should not kill, Seth said the whole idea of killing is fallacious to begin with: an enemy who is "dead" is far more harmful than one who is still alive. Here he was dealing with the basic unity of all consciousness again. Killing is not thought of as an end in itself on other planes, he repeated. But it is wrong to kill on our plane when we do consider it an end.

[...]

(So far man's behavior has him headed for destruction rather than survival. Seth repeated several times that for civilized man to kill is wrong. An animal in the jungle killing for food is one thing. To kill for the sake of killing is another. When a wild animal kills, the killed is replaced in the natural scheme of things. No gap is left, and the balance of nature is maintained. When man kills he rips out a part of himself that he has created. Man will stop killing when he realizes this, and that death is not an ending but a change of form.

[...]



ES5:S203 (p37)

[... 70 paragraphs ...]

Experiencing every moment comes close. I myself am not known for humility. Nevertheless my existence is dependent upon many things of which I know not. I learn through many existences, but I do not set myself up as many of you set yourself up, and I do not determine what shall be destroyed or who or what shall remain... Such actions... are based on cowardice... Any idea of a God, no matter how distorted, will triumph, for He exists in everything that you know. And when you kill so much as an ant, so do you kill part of Him in most practical terms.

When you kill in thought, you kill indeed.

[... 2 paragraphs ...]



ES7:S304   (p191)   

[... 9 paragraphs ...]

There are some fine points here. We shall try to tackle some of them. (Long pause.) For those who may seem like gods to you, killing is no crime, for there is no such thing as even the illusion of death. On one level then it is true that death, like life as you know it, is an illusion. You cannot rid yourselves completely of the illusion while you are within physical bodies.

Therefore, within this context you trust treat your living things gently. They are actualities within your system. [...]

[... 92 paragraphs ...]



ES8:S409   (p279)   

[... 14 paragraph ...]

[...] You have agreed, a large number of you, to ignore the existence of reincarnation. When you decide to accept this, then of course adequate proof for it will be found. (Long pause.)

As far as what you consider the race of man to be, unsuspected value fulfillments and progress will follow after this mass recognition. This will change civilization as you know it.

This will not come however for many reasons, for some time. Value fulfillment would not be achieved in some important directions if man ceased killing because he knew death did not exist. He must cease killing while he believes death does exist. He must solve the problem in the context that it developed.

[... 40 paragraphs ...]



ES9:S498   (p370-p371)   

[... 24 paragraphs ...]

There are cycles of entry into your system. Now the first, quote "mass" entries do not give you war. Those entering are at first too bewildered. Manipulation within the physical universe is strange. They do not realize the potential of their own energy, and it is not until they begin to realize it that they are, quote, "led into temptation."

They have to learn to handle it constructively. Now cooperation is an innate feature to these entering selves. Without it they could not survive long enough to learn anything. The warlike periods do not begin until this group achieves some ability at manipulation. Now while it seems to you that there has been little advance, there has indeed in the overall. Larger masses of individuals than ever before in this cycle realize that killing is wrong.

[... 22 paragraphs ...]




SS, Ch12, s550 (p178)

[... 72 paragraphs ...]

The problem of war will sooner or later teach you that when you kill another man, basically you will end up killing yourself. The over-population problem will teach you that if you do not have a loving concern for the environment in which you dwell, it will no longer sustain you — you will not be worthy of it. You will not be destroying the planet, you see. You will not be destroying the birds or the flowers, or the grain or the animals. You will not be worthy of them, and they will be destroying you.

[... 3 paragraphs ...]




NoPR, Ch 8, s634 (p142, p143),

[... 56 paragraphs ...]

Natural guilt then is the species' manifestation of the animals' unconscious corporeal sense of justice and integrity. It means: Thou shalt not kill more than is needed for thy physical sustenance. Period.

It has nothing to do with adultery or with sex. It does contain innate issues that apply to human beings, that would have no meaning for other animals in the framework of their experience. Strictly speaking, the translation from biological language to your own is as given in this session; but the finer discrimination reads thusly: Thou shalt not violate.

The animals do not need such a message, of course, nor can it be literally translated, for your consciousness is flexible and leeway had to be left for your own interpretation.

An outright lie may or may not be a violation. A sex act may or may not be a violation. A scientific expedition may or may not be a violation. Not going to church on Sunday is not a violation. Having normal aggressive thoughts is not a violation. Doing violence to your body, or another's, is a violation. Doing violence to the spirit of another is a violation — but again, because you are conscious beings the interpretations are yours. Swearing is not a violation. If you believe that it is then in your mind it becomes one.

(12:01.) Killing another human being is a violation. Killing while protecting your own body from death at the hands of another through immediate contact is a violation. Whether or not any justification seems apparent, the violation exists.

(Long pause.) Because you believe that physical self-defense is the only way to counter such a situation then you will say, "If I am attacked by another person, are you telling me that I cannot aggressively counter his obvious intent to destroy me?"

Not at all. You could counter such an attack in several ways that do not involve killing. You would not be in such a hypothetical situation to begin with unless violent thoughts of your own, faced or unfaced, had attracted it to you. But once it is a fact, and according to the circumstances, many methods could be used. Because you consider aggression synonymous with violence, you may not understand that aggressive — forceful, active, mental or spoken — commands for peace could save your life in such a case; yet they could.

Usually there are a variety of physical actions, not involving killing, that would suffice. As long as you believe that violence must be met with violence you court it and its consequences. [...]

[... 7 paragraphs ...]



NoPR, Ch 8, s635, (p145)

[... 10 paragraphs ...]

To that extent natural guilt projected man into the future. This is of course a learning process, natural within the time system that the species adopted. Unfortunately, artificial guilt takes on the same attributes, utilizing both memory and projection. Wars are self-perpetuating because they combine both natural and unnatural guilt, compounded and reinforced by memory. Conscious killing beyond the needs of sustenance is a violation.

[... 25 paragraphs ...]


UR1, s688 (p128)

[... 28 paragraphs ...]

Give us a moment ... In the body certain cells "kill" others, and in so doing the body's living integrity is maintained. The cells do each other that service (with gestures). In the exterior world certain animals "kill" others. You had for centuries, then, speaking in your limited terms, a situation in which men and animals were both hunters and prey. In those misty eras7 — from your standpoint — these activities were carried on with the deepest, most sacred comprehension. Again, the slain animal knew that it would "later" look out through its slayer's eyes8 — attaining a newer, different kind of consciousness. The man, the slayer, understood the great sense of harmony that existed even in the slaying, and knew that in turn the physical material of his body would be used by the earth to replenish the vegetable and animal kingdoms.

Even when you lost sight — as you knew you would — of those deep connections, they would continue to operate until, in its own way, man's consciousness could rediscover the knowledge and put it to use — deliberately and willfully, thereby bringing that consciousness to flower. In your terms this would represent a great leap, for the egotistically aware individual would fully comprehend unconscious knowledge and act on his own, out of choice. He would become a conscious co-creator. Obviously, this has not as yet occurred.

[... 32 paragraphs ...]



Now, in addition to all of this, here's another reason why Seth says that "killing" is wrong.



ES2:S64   (p171-p172)   

[... 16 paragraphs ...]

I know your cat meant no harm, and would regret depriving him of his playmate, except that when it is possible it is not only wise but advantageous to help any living creature, regardless of its stature in your scheme of things.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

You see your cat suffers no ill effects from such play, although on another value level it would be termed destructive. On your level there must be a commitment in even the smallest such issues. Value fulfillment is not measured according to size, and in such cases it is the value fulfillment, not of the captive so much as the potential savior.

[... 69 paragraphs ...]


jbseth

[Deb]

Thanks for pulling all of this together! That whole ES9 section is something new and interesting for me, as it goes beyond just "our" existence here. I guess I'll have to buy that book next (I have 1-4). It's getting harder to find used books.

What my basic take away from what Seth said, is that we maybe did not start out as a murderous lot, we were "at first too bewildered" and "Manipulation within the physical universe is strange." Until we got our sea legs, "The warlike periods do not begin until this group achieves some ability at manipulation."

Animals are way ahead of us in that they typically do "not kill more than is needed for thy physical sustenance." In most cases. From what I've heard, animals fighting over territory or a mate don't fight to the death. However, I have heard an animal such as a weasel, fox, raccoon and others sometimes will slaughter an excessive amount of animals even though they can't eat all of them. So maybe nature is not as perfect as I like to think.

Killing for food or self defense is a violation of course, even if potentially unavoidable. And there is no karmic punishment, but still the situation will need to be resolved. If someone is pointing a loaded gun at me and threatening to shoot me, I'm not sure I'd have the sense to reason with them and will fight for my life. But then if I also had a loaded gun, I'm not sure I'd be able pull the trigger either.

"Conscious killing beyond the needs of sustenance is a violation." So while here Seth is saying that killing for food is not necessarily a violation, killing more than what is needed is. Also, it leaves the door open to "unconscious" (unintentional/accidental killing) not being a violation.

So then we humans started killing. That appears to be the #1 lesson we need to learn as a race. Interesting that Seth says not killing because we realize there is no death is like cheating: We must come from a place of thinking we are doing real harm when we kill, that is when the real lesson will be learned. The intent to kill is as bad as the actual killing, it's the urge to destroy a living being, for whatever reason, that is the root of the problem.

People seem to be all over the board with their progress in learning this lesson. There are people who will not kill any living thing whether it's an insect or animals for consumption and yet there are news articles about vegetarians and vegans murdering humans. There are people who won't kill a human, but have no qualms about killing animals. Then there are psychopaths who enjoy killing people, such as serial killers. And everything in between.

I think we have a long road ahead of us.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

In, TES8, Session 397, March 6, 1968, Seth says the following:

[...] The murderer kills no one, yet if his intent is to do so then he must face the consequences of his intent. Crime after death is not punished. There is no crime to be punished, but between those last two statements lies a world of understanding, and knowledge that must be attained. And punishment enters in between those two statements as the individual takes the consequence for the action and the intent.

By the time he realizes the truth of the second statement, neither crime nor punishment affect him. There is no final judgment, for nothing is final. (Long pause.) There is no judgment because all is in transition toward greater knowledge and understanding. Between those two statements again lies worlds that must be deciphered.


In this statement above, I'd say that the world of understanding, and knowledge that must be attained, that Seth is referring to here, consists of having experiences such that we finally grasp some of the following concepts: you create your reality, beliefs are powerful tools in reality creation, if you dwell on negativity and violence then you draw these things to you, there is no evil - only misunderstanding, there is no death - after death you do transition into another reality, reincarnation exists, and all time is simultaneous.

This world of understanding and knowledge also includes an understanding that if in some reality you are a victimizer, then in some other reality, you will likely reincarnate to experience what it's like to be a victim and visa versa. Seth gives an example of this in ES1:S32 where he mentions that during WW2, some of the Jewish people who experienced the Holocaust, were Huns, of a very cruel nature, in the past.

One way out of this dilemma is to recognize this situation and not chose to be either a victimizer or a victim, in the first place. This then, I think, is what Seth is referring to by his statements about a world of understanding, and knowledge that must be attained.


Now, in regards to an understanding of "killing" I'm going to paraphrase that first paragraph in TES8, Session 397 as follows:

[...] The individual who kills something, kills nothing, yet if the individual's intent is to do so then they must face the consequences of their intent. Crime after death is not punished. There is no crime to be punished, but between those last two statements lies a world of understanding, and knowledge that must be attained. And punishment enters in between those two statements as the individual takes the consequence for the action and the intent.

Once again in regards to "killing" this world of understanding and knowledge also includes an understanding that if in some reality you are a victimizer, then in some other reality, you will likely reincarnate to experience what it's like to be a victim. And again, one way out of this is to recognize this situation and not chose be a victimizer in the first place.


I saw nothing in the statements that Seth made in regards to killing, that indicated that it was OK to kill, for example, the weeds in a garden or the mice that may be infesting your house.

Which leads me to the question about what are we to do in these types of situations.

Here I suspect that the answer lies in Seth's comments about the world of understanding.
If we have weeds in our garden or mice in our house, are we really the "victims" of some outside influence?  Don't we create our reality?

If we do, in fact, create our reality, then why do we have weeds or mice?  Did we perhaps attract this situation to us by dwelling on the concern or fear that these things could, might or would occur?
Is it possible to have a garden with no weeds or a house with no mice?


If we have weeds or mice, we get to choose for ourselves what we want to do about them.  Kill them or not, that is our choice.

Perhaps going forward however, it may be good to consider whether we really do believe that it is possible to have a garden with no weeds or a house with no mice. Perhaps going forward it may be good to consider whether we may have drawn these experiences to us by dwelling upon a concern or fear that this could or would occur.  Perhaps going forward it may be good to consider whether we really believe that we create our own reality.

jbseth

[Deb]

I saw nothing in the statements that Seth made in regards to killing, that indicated that it was OK to kill, for example, the weeds in a garden or the mice that may be infesting your house.

True. While he did use weeds as examples in his stories, such as this one, he does't seem particularly emotional about them.

"In other words negative thoughts can be recognized and plucked out with no more rancor than you would pluck out weeds in a garden. There is no need blaming yourself that in the past you allowed the weeds to grow, sometimes in your ignorance imagining them to be flowers. Your job now is simply to remove them, and as you remove each one, easily, to drop in a seed of positive thought to replace it."
—TPS1 Session 478 (Deleted) April 28, 1969

Which leads me to the question about what are we to do in these types of situations.

Here I suspect that the answer lies in Seth's comments about the world of understanding.
If we have weeds in our garden or mice in our house, are we really the "victims" of some outside influence?  Don't we create our reality?

If we do, in fact, create our reality, then why do we have weeds or mice?  Did we perhaps attract this situation to us by dwelling on the concern or fear that these things could, might or would occur?
Is it possible to have a garden with no weeds or a house with no mice?

Yes, that's the same old argument of making our own reality. But we don't do that completely alone. I ended up with the rats suddenly moving in with my chickens, which was a complete surprise to me (first time, I've been in this house 20 years). We used to have pet rats, so there is no fear of them and it never occurred to me we had them in the burbs.

Is it possible to have a garden with no weeds? I haven't seen that, and Monsanto seems to have done pretty well in my 'system' so I'm not alone. There are those 'conventions' of life in every system Seth has mentioned quite a bit—we inhabitants have agreed there are certain things that will remain constants here to keep things a little neater. Maybe weeds are on that list. Mice in the house—I don't have.

I'll deal with my back yard rodents and weeds. The chickens are getting older, once they're gone the rats will lose their shelter and food and will move on. The weeds will be here forever since I can't bring myself to use Roundup and my yard backs up to an open field full of... weeds. Maybe I spend that time figuratively plucking out negative thoughts and beliefs that don't serve me. And catching up on the Seth Audios.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

To me, one of the biggest questions I have in regards to Seth's teachings is this.


Seth says that we create our reality. In doing this however, how many things, are we actually able to control or change?


I understand that we don't completely "create" all of our reality alone, but what, if anything can we control, and what, if anything, can't we control?

And if it appears that we can't control the rats, the mice and the weeds that occur in our life, for example, is this because we really can't control them or is it because we've accepted some limiting beliefs about our ability to control them.

Since I don't know the answer to these questions, I always seem to be on alert in regards to accepting what might turn out to be incorrect limiting beliefs about our ability to control our reality.

jbseth

[Deb]

Seth says that we create our reality. In doing this however, how many things, are we actually able to control or change?

Great question, we should look into that and see if there's an answer. We know the basics of course, I'll get us started with them:

I directly make my own reality based on my beliefs:

"This does not apply to the two of you alone, but to your world at large: you make your own reality through your beliefs. You want to keep your beliefs yet change your reality—I am not referring to you personally here now—but this is impossible."
—TPS2 Deleted Session November 26, 1973

Others can affect my reality in that we react (based on our ideas) to others' telepathic thoughts, but this too is based on my beliefs:

"As I mentioned earlier (in the 616th session), you are also sending your own telepathic thoughts outward. Others will react to those according to their own ideas of reality."
—NoPR Chapter 3: Session 617, September 25, 1972

I give myself proof of my beliefs about reality by attracting things that support my beliefs into my realm:

"Again, you make your own reality. When you view the world, social groups, political groups, your friends, your private experience — these are all attracted into your realm of activity by your beliefs. Natural hypnosis, as explained in the last chapter, leads you to seek out those situations that will confirm your beliefs, and to avoid those that threaten them."
—NoPR Chapter 17: Session 661, May 7, 1973

I chose my birth, physical form, parents, childhood conditions and death before I incarnated:

"Often, particularly in the case of mental or physical birth defects, the incapacitated person will be accepting that role not only because of personal reasons; he or she will also be choosing that part for the family as a whole."
—NoPR Chapter 19: Session 667, May 30, 1973

But I have free will (within reason) to make choices that will affect my reality:

"Within certain limits there is free will. Yet these limits themselves were set, or if you prefer, chosen, by the entity itself for any given present personality; and at the entity level free choice or free will is much more extensive, and really has much more meaning."

"Free will exists on a limited scale on your plane, but it does exist, and the very limitations themselves are the result of free will choices made on another plane by the various entities."
—TES1 Session 36 March 18, 1964

And my physical existence and experienced are limited by certain conventions (root assumptions--something else I want to explore) that are the basic rules of this system of reality. Other systems have their own root assumptions.

"Root assumptions are those laws upon which you agree in any system of reality. [...]"
—SS Appendix: ESP Class Session: Tuesday, June 23, 1970

"While physical, you follow physical laws, or assumptions"
—NoPR Chapter 1: Session 613, September 11, 1972

"Again physically speaking, you will find nothing to contradict these assumptions, since physically to you they are all that you can experience or perceive. These root assumptions are the framework of your camouflage system. As you attempt to explore other realities you almost automatically interpret such data in terms of the root assumptions of your own system."
—TES7 Session 285 September 12, 1966

"Later we will discuss such matters as birth defects. Here we are speaking about conditions that can be physically corrected — but not the growth of an arm if you were born without one, for example, or the correction of other lacks in the body at birth."
—NoPR Chapter 9: Session 637, January 31, 1973

"Yet if you are in the Northeast in the wintertime, you had better be experiencing a physical winter (humorously), or you are far divorced from primary sense data."
—NoME Chapter 6: Session 812, October 1, 1977

I found this interesting:

"You make your own reality, but you cannot ignore the greater reality from which your world springs."
—TPS3 Deleted Session August 20, 1977

The limitations of the conventions of our system only apply to my physical existence in this system, as we are multidimensional and without limitations: 

"The inner senses are not bound by those root assumptions however."
—TES7 Session 285 September 12, 1966

"The root assumptions that govern physical reality are indeed valid, but within physical reality alone. [...] There is a natural tendency to continue judging inner experience against these root assumptions however. [...]"
—TES7 Session 285 September 12, 1966

"(9:50.) Now, there are no closed systems in reality. In your physical system the nature of your perceptions limits your idea of reality to some extent, because you purposely decide to focus within a given "locale." But basically speaking, consciousness can never be a closed system, and all barriers of such a nature are illusion. Therefore the soul itself is not a closed system."
—SS Chapter 6: Session 527, May 11, 1970

- - -

After finding these quotes, I have to say that while I make my own personal reality in this physical existence beginning with pre-birth choices and then constant creation based on my expectations and beliefs, there are some limitations as to how much freedom I have. How I look, my health, my finances, safety, surroundings (to some extent), the usual day to day stuff are up to me and based on my beliefs. Same goes for situations I find myself in. But if I live in a place where cold and snow are the norm this time of year, I won't have a back yard full of palm trees and green grass while everyone else is digging out of snow. Unless I build a greenhouse over my entire yard. That would be an acceptable way to get around a root assumption and make my reality. To suddenly regrow a lost limb? Nope. But an artificial limb would again be acceptable in terms of root assumptions. So there are workarounds for a lot of situations.

But my free will being limited by my entity is another matter.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Recently, we had a washing machine malfunction that basically flooded part of our single floor house.  To make a long story short, this resulted in some black mold in being discovered in the crawlspace below the floor where this flood occurred. A restoration company came out, removed most of the insulation below all of the floors in our house and treated the mold. After this was complete, I contacted some insulation contractors and after about 3 weeks in January, I was finally was able to get the insulation reinstalled.

During this 3 weeks in January, the water pipes below our house were not covered with any insulation. I was concerned about this because January is typically the coldest time of year here in the Portland, Oregon area and often during January the temperatures at night will dip below 32F, where water will freeze and sometimes well below 32F.

Before and during this time I focused on the weather being warm here in our area, so that our pipes wouldn't freeze and burst.

During this 3 week period, we had, for the most part, weather that was relatively warm. We did have a couple of nights where the temperature dropped to the mid 20's but that was all.

After I got the pipes insulated, I quit focusing on the temperature and we've had snow and many more cold nights since then. In fact, so far, February has been much colder than January, which is rather unusual.


Did I create this warm weather reality during January?   

Did I, through my focused intent, modify the weather such that during this 3 weeks we didn't have any severely cold days.

If so, then what does this imply in regards to our ability control some of the environment that we all are subjected to.

How much actual control over our and other peoples reality do we actually have?

I don't know the answer to this, but because of experiences like this, I think that we may have more control than we often realize.

jbseth

[Deb]

Did I create this warm weather reality during January?   

Maybe so. And in agreement with others since I'm assuming your warmer weather was witnessed by other people. But because it may not have been completely unreasonable for this time of year (such as it suddenly being 90° several days in a row in Jan.), it didn't fall under that root assumption clause.

My question is, why did you invite the washer malfunction/black mold in the first place? Sorry, I'm just being annoying here. But I also have a story.

About a year ago my refrigerator ice maker leaked. It was the third time, but this was the last straw. I have all hardwood floors throughout my main level. About 40 sq ft of hardwood was soaked and cupping. Water cleanup guys came and ripped out that much of my flooring, fans ran for 2-3 days. No mold.

Since you can't just replace the ruined wood (the stain can't be matched), they ended up having to sand and refinish my entire downstairs. Which needed it at this point. So I had my entire ground level floors refinished, courtesy of the insurance company. Then there was the snowball effect. Since we had to replace the fridge, we decided to get a new stove and dishwasher (they were all 20 years old). The finish on the kitchen cabinets had started to peel and flake 10 years ago -- it was a good time to resurface the cabinets. The cabinet guys broke the sliding glass door that goes to the patio. That was replaced with one far superior to the original. That took almost a year because they kept measuring incorrectly and the "custom" doors were the wrong size a few times. But here I sit, a year later, with a completely renovated kitchen. And I know now why I invited that leaky fridge into my reality.

This is not the first time this has happened where I "lucked out" due to damages. Something similar happened with my roof/house paint/gutters/screens a few years ago due to an incredibly damaging hail storm. The roof was already on its way out, but got that replaced, house repainted, etc. for the cost of a deductible. Then we added solar panels for free due to a special promotion that just happened to be running at the time. Not only are they economical, but they keep the house cooler in the summer and have protected the new roof from additional hail storms.

And also a situation with my car that was aging with many blemishes. Someone ran into me in a way that all the damaged areas had to be replaced. All the blemished areas were replace and the car was just like new.

I feel like I'm very good at manifesting, it's just that my methods of getting to the end result are not always the most efficient way to get there. Or I could be wrong about that.

How much actual control over our and other peoples reality do we actually have?

My feeling is that is entirely up to other people's cooperation and so we have no control over other people at all. It's up to them. Like Seth's comment about how people react to our expectations of them... it is purely their call as to whether they will play along or not.

I have this vision of a movie set where we the writers/producers are behind the scenes scripting as the show goes along.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

I think my issue here is in grasping with the issues of what it is that we actually can do verses what it is that we actually can't do.


In TES1, Session 11, Seth materialized a hand that Rob and Bill Macdonnel both saw and touched.

In TES2, Session 47, Rob described a bi-location experience that he had, where he was resting on his bed and suddenly found his awareness in a building that he was familiar with in New York City and he saw a woman struggling with a window.

Then in TES2, Session 48, Seth described another bi-location method whereby a person resting on a bed, could diffuse his energies and create a second that would be visible at another location (see quotes from TES2, Session 48 below).


To me, both of these things would appear to violate, what I would consider to be root assumptions of this reality.  Given that these 2 things apparently are possible, I no longer necessarily believe that other things, which appear to violate root assumptions, are necessarily impossible.

Maybe we can change the weather? Maybe we can have a garden with no weeds?

I'm not saying that I know that we can. It's just that I no longer necessarily accept the belief that we can't.

Does that make sense?



TES2, Session 48

[...] Another method is somewhat more complicated and involves a diffusion of energies, a partially-visible secondary camouflage body appearing in a new location, while the original body remains in its original position.

In this case the body would appear visible on the bed while another, identical body would appear in the new location to which the personality-essence had traveled. In this case a potential observer would see what would appear to be an ordinary physical being.

Conversation could then be carried on. There are gradations in the degree of materialization here, in that the secondary body would be absolutely normal-appearing in all respects, or could be less so, according to the ability of the traveler. You have done very well this evening.


jbseth