Tam Mossman "Answers from a Grander Self"

[Deb]

Post from another topic:

It's a question of semantics at the end of the day. If you need to heal yourself, then you are under the impression, by definition, that there is an illness, or something 'wrong' with you. How can you heal yourself if the idea that gives birth to healing is illness? Modern medicine is still looking for the magical panacea.

I get that. We've also been taught that we can't heal without the help of something outside of ourself—a doctor, hospital or prescription.

I think labeling is a problem, but that's how we need to operate at this time. Such as, with something like alcoholism: a person is told by a professional that they have a disease and they will never truly recover. This takes the power and responsibility away from the person to recover not only on their own, but at all.

Sorry this is post so long, but I found it to be interesting timing. I just got a book yesterday by Tam Mossman. He was the Prentice-Hall assistant editor back in 1968, when he became involved in producing Jane's ESP book. He was also there for The Seth Material and Seth Speaks. In 1975 he started getting his own channeled information. I'm only getting started on the book, but I thought this was interesting timing and something I'd never considered: Similarities between DID, possession and even viruses. Excuse any typos please. It's a long quote so I've underlined just a couple of the parts I thought were interesting comparing "possession" with DID.

Does possession as depicted in The Exorcist really occur? What allows it to happen? And what do you recommend to prevent it?

Possession as depicted in that movie does in fact occur. But the real cause is not the devil or outside entities, as you may have been led to believe, and the preventive treatment is not primarily religious in nature.

In many non-technological societies, simple illness—"simple" according to your present-day definition—is seen as the work of evil spirits. The swelling of an infection, fever, depression, and mental illnesses are all seen as afflictions alien to the sufferer, arising from one sort of possession or another.

And in essence, such an interpretation is strictly accurate, because illness, of whatever variety, is the product of unbalanced development of the host personality. One part of the body, or one of its systems, seeks to grow—or not grow—at another's expense. As a result, the organism is weakened in specific areas, literally inviting a specific disease—whether manifested by the body's own cells or by the sudden unrestrained growth of a virus or bacterium. In short, the physical illness is allowed to manifest a repressed or "minority" thought in fleshy form. But the same impulses and energy could be more healthily manifested through coherent, balanced change and outward action.

As with physical illness, so with imbalances of the mind—for after all, the latter cause the former! Certain metabolic diseases, including the one manifested most commonly as warts, result in bizarre growths that seem relatively independent of the body on which they occur.

But hasn't it been proven that warts are caused by a virus?

Indeed it has. But what do you suppose activates the virus in the fist place? I suggest the basic cause of warts is a metabolic disorder that lets small deposits of unexcreted substance lodge in the skin—small, but sufficient to act as a catalyst or "fertilizer" for viral particles. It is a disorder similar to, but infinitely less sever than, gout. A test of the blood of wart sufferers will someday reveal its presence.

Now, a wart assumes more or less the same shape, regardless of the body part on which it occurs; even though its component cells are, in fact, those of the body. With that preamble in mind, you are in a better position to comprehend so-called possession.

As I said, the psyche is constantly budding off and seeding new parts of itself, joyously and adventurously, into new realities, including—and this is important to remember—into its perceived present. The mind's main focus is forward, into the immediate future it has selected for itself, just as an animal racing across the ground is most attentive to the turf directly before it.

If the immediate future appears blocked—not dangerous, because danger is usually perceived as challenge on the deepest level of the psyche—but blocked, then the psyche endeavors to flow around the present obstacle, much as an amoeba would attempt to do so. And if the psyche produces too many "arms," it can, in a sense, lose track of them. Multi-focus consciousness is natural and easy at the Oversoul level, but it is not always possible for a single human psyche—much less a relatively childish, immature one—to hold its various extensions in simultaneous focus. Thus, you get cases of split personality as well as possession. In the former instances, semi-independent personalities manifest themselves as human, as in the case of Sybil. In the latter, they take on the guise of demons, as depicted in The Exorcist.

I invite you to view the parallels and similarities. Your experts agree that clinical split personality is almost always sparked by the core personality having suffered child abuse at a young age. Similarly, possession often afflicts the young and supposedly innocent—children, women, would-be saints, and others who have considered themselves "molested" by a hostile, or at best indifferent, universe. If the hostility of a parent can snap a young mind into defensive fragments that seek to scurry and hide, how much more of a fragmenting blow can be dealt by the horrendous concept of a malevolent universe—or a Hell that seeks to punish transient sins with punishment everlasting? The more you believe in torments reserved for the damned, the more you must believe in the depths of evil that would merit such a fate.

Recall that in practically every case of possession, the devils or demons act subhuman or, at best, less than adult. They swear, make noises, play pranks, and hardly comport themselves as what they are alleged to be—fallen angels, higher than Man in the order of creation. I can assure you that no self-aware discarnate of my level ever debases itself! Any entity manifesting such coarse selfishness and vulgarity is on its way up, not down.

Now, every so often, the exorcising priest meets with with a Lucifer or Beelzebub who carries himself with dignity and speaks fine Latin, and any number of languages. But so it is with split personalities—usually there is a core entity, wiser and more mature than the rest, who acts as the ringleader and manifests admirable abilities that, essentially, compensate for the feeling of powerlessness experienced by the originating psyche.

Another parallel your parapsychologists have overlooked is that possession is often associated with poltergeist activity. Is it not conceivable, then, that the "demons" are merely poltergeists manifesting within the body and nervous system—just as a virus, unimpeded, swiftly takes on a life of its own within the tissues? I remind you that the youthful fragments of the psyche are natural chameleons, innate actors. To insure their survival, they do not just blend in with their surroundings, but assume the appearance and behavior of more highly developed entities—ideally, coming across as authority figures with whom you would not care to mess. And so, the most junior of your psychic fragments (and everyone, healthy or not, has them to one degree or another) will typically announce themselves through the Ouija board as Alexander the Great or Louis XIV. Or, through the entranced mouth of a troubled youngster, they may style themselves the Hound of Hell, Ashtoreth, or Moloch—and take understandable delight in the alacrity with which they are believed.

One further fact that your professionals have failed to notice: A "possessing spirit" usually obeys, and very strictly indeed,, the tenets of whatever religious creed its core personality was brought up in. Thus, you have Buddhist demons, Catholic demons, Protestant Episcopalian demons, even Hindu and Shinto demons—each of which is sent fleeing by a ritual of the appropriate sect. Now, if you suppose that each subspecies of demon must be quelled by a different religious antibiotic, you are postulating a most complex universe indeed!

I would suggest a simpler explanation, by way of an observation self-evident to any minister: Pure, unswerving, unquestionable faith in organized religion is most prevalent in those who perceive themselves as powerless. Is it a coincidence that these candidates for orthodoxy are often the "victims" of entities who obey their religious world-view right down to the letter? Such following-the-dots with consistency and precision is one of the typical ways in which an insecure being seeks approval and a sense of identity.

With these theorems in mind, I believe you can work out the remainder of the equation for yourself.

Excerpt from Chapter 1, The Channeling Implosion—You Are a Part of Whatever you Contact from
Answers from a Grander Self, Tam Mossman, self-published 1993

[Deb]

I finally finished Tam Mossman's Answers from a Grander Self. I enjoyed it, and of course it's very aligned with Seth. I appreciated the question and answer format which made the answers direct and to the point. Here are four questions examples from the book that I consider food for thought (underlines are mine). I enjoy trying to view events and ideas from different perspectives, such as the answer about "unhealthy behavior patterns." I'm also putting up a link to a local TV commercial which clearly demonstrates the importance of understanding perspective. The last two questions are things I've wondered about myself, and thought the answers made sense.

I'm not a professional athlete, but still I have chronic knee pain. Can you tell me why? pg 81

[talks about symbolism of knee problems, "giving in" and submission, then:]

Long-lasting pain is nearly always the psyche speaking through the body consciousness, asking that a long-standing but contradictory belief system be resolved or "straightened out." In essence, long-term pain results from the personality wanting something both ways—by not wholly rejecting what it seems to abhor. The obvious result is a double-bind situation in which the body is checked in its own innate efforts to balance itself.

[goes on that we use our bodies as "dumping grounds for unresolved wastes of the psyche"]

Your ultimate way toward health is to make a pact with your body. Promise never to give it anything it is not capable of handling; that your emotions and psyche will themselves handle anything they can best handle. And ask your body to give back to you anything that you, in ignorance, have dumped upon it.

[gives examples, explantions]

I'm less afraid to dying, really, than of living in pain. Yet I can't seem to get rid of unhealthy behavior patterns. How can I become more confident about my health and longevity? (pg 87)

It does not matter so much how long you live as how well you live—no new thought to anyone familiar with Classical philosophy. I would add that what you see as "unhealthy" behavior patterns may, in fact, be ways of letting off steam—bleeding off anxiety and negative energies that, if allowed to remain, would be far more detrimental to you.

Look around, and you will notice abundant examples of individuals whose enjoyed behavior, though somewhat excessive, does them no apparent harm. Sadly, you can also find plentiful individuals who—for example—smoke, knowing it is bad for them. Such people are basically hypnotizing themselves in a negative manner, accelerating whatever unhealthy effects they suffer. Others view certain inescapable "facts" of daily experience—exposure to sun, air pollution, everyday stress—as highly unhealthy; and thus greatly increase the malign effects of those stimuli they interpret as "bad."

To ensure good health, anchor yourself imaginatively to a hale and hearty future. Specifically, envision yourself in an old age as a spry, agile, limber, and glowing radiant human being. Imagine yourself bounding out of bed. Create, if you will, a few ailments—bursitis, minor arthritis, perhaps a cataract—from which your body has recovered, resoundingly and to the astonished approval of your doctors.

[goes on with some examples, then:]

Simply by maintaining your health and "proving that it can be done," you enable others to resonate to your example. Conversely, do not allow yourself to resonate to others—especially members of your family and close friends—who are sickly or in poor physical condition. Compassion and identification are too easily linked and confused in your culture.

When a physical personality dies, what happens to its non-physical components—and to other, still-living personalities on the spectrum of the Grander Self? (pg 165)

You ask two separate questions...
In your terms, the dying personality dies to a higher sphere of influence, even as your scientists imagine that energized electrons are boosted to ascending shells around the atomic nucleus.

Think of your astronauts, who see the Earth more clearly from space and feel a wonder and affection for it that they do not sense when they stand directly upon it. Similarly, when you die, you will be simultaneously removed from—and more in touch with—the Entire Source of your being.

As for the other individual parts of this Grander Entity, think of the dandelion: Just because one seed blows away, that does not mean the other seeds must lose their grip. They will ripen and venture forth in their own time. In one sense. there is greater energy available to the "surviving" aspects—but I must complicate that statement by explaining that each of you has died several times in this life! It sounds like a paradox, but it is not. Think back in your life to when you narrowly averted an accident, recovered from a serious illness, or felt a sense of doom and saw no exit from a life that was dark, lonely, and cold. Of course, the accident did not occur; you recovered; things changed. But in a sense, a probable you did die in those alternate circumstances, taking with it—and away from the "you" that survived—a number of negativities, so you could begin the rest of your life with fewer burdens and anxieties.

Any large-intent event is rehearsed in some way, either in a dream, in a probability, or as a split-second calculation at the beginning of the event itself. The life that flashes in front of a dying person's eyes is like a high-speed computer analysis. The self, thinking that it may die, reviews the circumstances leading up to the instant of death: "Does dis-associating from the physical fulfill my intent at this point in time?" In short, the individual is doing a spot calculation to see whether the death is justified, whether it "computes."

That reminded me both of Russian Doll and also this Seth quote:

"When your mother died in her 50's in one probable system, your mother in this system was the recipient of energy that then returned."
—UR1 Section 1: Session 680 February 6, 1974

Is it usual for older people to be able to see non-physical entities? (pg 162)

It is not unusual in the least.

To a very large degree, people of all ages perceive a great many more entities than you would expect. During the prime of physical life, however, the focus on earthly life is usually so narrow—intense, you might say—that such "extraneous" beings are swept aside from conscious awareness.

[skipped analogy demonstrating deep concentration]

In very young children, and again in the elderly, this precise concentration lapses to a large degree—but not out of inability, however! Genetically, the young child is programmed to maintain a few ties to the non-physical realm. Before your era of modern medicine, children stood a fairly good chance of not surviving to adolescence. It would have been cruel to return them to non-physical reality with no preparation at all; and so, historically, children have kept a few lines of perception and focus open to other realities, almost as a means of insurance.

[goes on to explain that it's a similar situation for the elderly—preparation for return to non-physical existence!]

And for the commercial on perspective (and hopefully more balanced and factual news reporting, amen):

[LarryH]

Today I received my autographed used copy of Tam's book. I paid a few bucks more for it. The inscription says, "With best wishes, Tam Mossman + (and then there is a symbol)". One could interpret the symbol as a stylized script "J", and I think I'll go with that, since the channeled personality is called "James".

[Deb]

Lucky you LarryH! I LOVE having signed copies of books, it's sort of a thing for me. It makes the book more personal, that it was at least touched by the author, even if it's written to someone else. 

I still keep hoping to find a Seth book signed by Jane (or even better, Seth). I suppose I should stop hoping and just expect it will happen. And then find some used books stores to peruse. I've bought some used books on Amazon that were signed, which I didn't expect. They were surprises.