Seth's statements imply limitations to the self?

[happiness]

Seth says there are no limitations to the self. You can adopt artificial limitations through your own ignorance, however (Seth Speaks, page 6).

Yet, there are certain truths or dictums that seem to produce limitations. For example,

No physical form lasts (page 1). [Doesn't this imply the universe has a limitation? If there exists not even a single place in the whole of ALL THAT IS that allows for a lasting physical form, then isn't it weak/limited?]

All information must be interpreted and coloured by the personality who holds it and passes it on (page 3). [The universe is weak/limited because it cannot even create a single personality who could pass information without colouring it.]

Each reader is a portion of his own entity, and is developing toward the same kind of existence that I know (page 12). ["The same kind" sounds limiting.]

Consciousness must show itself, however. It cannot unbe. (page 14)

We have discovered that no one can escape the vast creativity of the mental image, or of emotion (page 18). [The universe is weak/limited because it cannot even create a single person who can escape this.]

We also realise that permanency of form is an illusion, since all consciousness must be in a state of change (page 24). [The universe is weak/limited because it cannot create something that is permanent, not even one, and also it cannot create one consciousness that does not change.]

No one is ever identical — and incidentally, no physical object in your system is an exact duplicate of any other (page 25). [The universe is weak/limited because it cannot create identical things.]

The multidimensional self cannot act within three-dimensional reality until it materialises a portion of itself within it. Within this reality, it then brings about all kinds of creativity and development that could not appear otherwise. During its three-dimensional existence, it has helped others in ways that they could not otherwise be helped, and it has been itself benefited and developed in ways that would be impossible otherwise. (page 30) [The universe is weak/limited because some things are impossible to achieve.]

If these statements are true, then there are limitations to the universe [All That Is] and the self [the whole self]. Isn't it?

[Sena]

Seth says there are no limitations to the self.

happiness, I agree that the bare statement "there are no limitations to the self" cannot be absolutely and literally true. It can only be relatively true.
I would re-phrase it like this:
"Most human beings accept limitations to the self which would be seen as unnecessary if they become aware of their inner selves".

The full quote from Seth is here:

"For convenience's sake, you close out the multitudinous inner communications that leap between the tiniest parts of your flesh, yet even as physical creatures, you are to some extent a portion of other consciousnesses. There are no limitations to the self. There are no limitations to its potentials. (Pause.) You can adopt artificial limitations through your own ignorance, however. You can identify, for example, with your outer ego alone, and cut yourself off from abilities that are a part of you." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: http://amzn.eu/6InQgOW

[Deb]

When you write "universe" here, do you mean the physical universe we live in, or is it another way to say All That Is? There's a big difference between them. The physical universe is part of our camouflage reality and there are certain conventions that could be seen also as limitations.

As far as the "self" being limited or unlimited, which "self"? There is a difference between the 'ego conscious self' we are while existing in the physical plane of existence vs. the 'whole self' which is multidimensional. You may want to take a look at this topic, Personality vs. Identity:

Identity is not the same thing as personality. Personality is that part of identity that manifests itself within physical reality and within your time. Identity is far greater than personality. Personality represents only those aspects of identity that you are able to actualize within three-dimensional existence. The inner self knows who it is. The inner self communicates with your present personality. In your dreams you have communication with that larger portion of yourself that is your identity. Personality may be to some extent molded by circumstance. Identity uses the experiences. Identity is not carried willy-nilly, but holds its own. ESP Class Sessions Book 1, Dec. 10, 1965

Here, Seth is saying that we are multidimensional/unlimited beings, but we close our eyes to anything beyond our current existence, our world of outer senses, and in that way limit ourselves (repeating what Sena quoted):

For convenience's sake, you close out the multitudinous inner communications that leap between the tiniest parts of your flesh, yet even as physical creatures, you are to some extent a portion of other consciousnesses. There are no limitations to the self. There are no limitations to its potentials. (Pause.) You can adopt artificial limitations through your own ignorance, however. You can identify, for example, with your outer ego alone, and cut yourself off from abilities that are a part of you. You can deny, but you cannot change, the facts. The personality is multidimensional, even though many people hide their heads, figuratively speaking, in the sand of three-dimensional existence and pretend there is nothing more.  Seth Speaks, session 512, pg. 12

Also we limit ourselves due to our beliefs, which hopefully we will change when we realize what we're doing to ourselves:

In simple terms, you will not try to achieve something that you believe impossible within your concepts of reality. The conscious mind, with its normally considered intellect, is meant to access the practicality of action within your world. You will literally see only what you want to see.

If the race believed that space travel was impossible, you would not have it. That is one thing; but if an individual believes that it is literally impossible for him to travel from one end of the continent to another, or to change his job, or perform any act, then the act becomes practically impossible. The "Unknown" Reality, Vol. 1, Session 195

Personally I don't see things like physical form not lasting or your other examples being weakness or a limitation of ATI, but instead a system and other planes of existence probably have their own limitations. "Nothing remains unchanging" (from Session 54)—there has to be change in order for there to be constant growth and expansion. Otherwise ATI would become stagnant. Don't forget that famous line in Annie Hall, "A relationship, I think, is like a shark. It has to constantly move forward or it dies." ATI is like a shark.

[happiness]

When you write "universe" here, do you mean the physical universe we live in, or is it another way to say All That Is?

Universe here means All That Is.

As far as the "self" being limited or unlimited, which "self"?

Self here means the whole self.

Seth mentions that there are certain things that are impossible for the whole self to achieve (page 30, underlined parts in first post). So if you believe this, you would accept this and not strive to achieve these impossible things.

But if you believe that the whole self is never limited, then you would believe everything is possible, and you would strive to achieve these impossible things, only to realise later that you are bound to fail.

So these two beliefs are conflicting each other. They cannot both be true.

[Deb]

The multidimensional self cannot act within three-dimensional reality until it materializes a portion of itself within it. Within this reality, it then brings about all kinds of creativity and development that could not appear otherwise. During its three-dimensional existence, it has helped others in ways that they could not otherwise be helped, and it has been itself benefited and developed in ways that would be impossible otherwise.

(page 30) [The universe is weak/limited because some things are impossible to achieve.]

I don't see this as limitation of the self but rather one of those rules or conditions of this physical existence. For example, and this is an oversimplification, it's like saying I can't swim (here, in this reality) unless I get in some water. We can't breathe under water without equipment. But I can and do swim through air and breathe under water in my dreams. The multidimensional self can act within the 3D reality once it has made a part of itself physical in order to be able to function in the physical world. Seth also said that when we finally leave the physical body, our non-physical self  "... cannot as a rule manipulate physical objects. You cannot pick up a lamp or throw a dish..." But then, we are able to do anything we can do in our dreams: fly, move through solid objects, etc.  Seth Speaks, Session 537

I also hesitate to describe All That Is as weak, or limited, or any other words we would use to describe people, since ATI is not a person nor what we think of as an all-powerful and interfering god, but instead a benign gestalt consciousness that runs through all of creation. And we are both creations and creators. ATI is "the sum of all consciousness, and yet the whole is more than the sum of Its parts." There's a really interesting bit on ATI in The Early Sessions Vol.9 that I'd added here. I don't have TES9, the quote comes from a website I found, so I'm hoping it's accurate. I have ordered the book so will be able to verify later.

Seth mentions that there are certain things that are impossible for the whole self to achieve

I don't take that so literally. That part of the quote deals with creativity, development, helping others. I don't see that as weak or limiting, but rather that each one of us has our own unique gifts to contribute to the richness of reality. It reminds me of my favorite Seth quote, which is about the uniqueness of each one of us: "the touch of your hand can change a life in a way that no other individual, alive or dead, could change that life."

If you click on the link below, you can read the entire quote.

the touch of your hand can change a life in a way that no other individual, alive or dead, could change that life. You act upon those that you know and those that you do not know in ways that no other individual can ever act.

So these two beliefs are conflicting each other. They cannot both be true.

I'd love to address this at some point.  I recently read Tam Mossman's book and he tackles that belief in an interesting and convincing way. I'll need to pull the book out and find some quotes first though.

[chasman]

hi happiness,
     welcome to this awesome forum.
thank you for your interesting questions.
thank you Deb and Sena for your interesting replies.

my understanding of this is that the multidimensional self
materializes a portion of itself in 3 dimensional reality.
that is people. us.
we (as 3 dimensional portions of our multidimensional selves),
do indeed now act.
so this is the way that it IS possible.

Seth is saying that if the multidimensional self could not materialize a portion of itself in 3 dimensional reality, then it WOULD be impossible.
its a little tricky to understand, I think.
but not impossible to understand.  (wink)