Can we re-create our past from the present?

[happiness]

Seth says we create our past and future from the present moment. Suppose I kill someone yesterday, and today I want to change that horrible past into one where I did not commit the murder. Suppose I succeeded. My question is would there be a difference, at the most fundamental level, between the version of me who committed the murder and then succeeded in changing my past, and the version of me who did not commit the murder in the first place in the past at all?

If there is a fundamental difference, then it only means that I was not really successful in changing my past at the most fundamental level. But if there is no fundamental difference, then it seems that the Akashic records are not being recorded properly, since anyone can rewrite his past as he wishes.

The fact that I could imagine these two version of me (one where I killed and changed, and one where I did not) seems to hint that they must be fundamentally different. And intuitively, they feel different. But if so, this would go against what Seth says about us creating (or re-creating) our past from our present.

[Sena]

Seth says we create our past and future from the present moment.

happiness, did Seth actually say that? Even if he did, I am not sure whether it is profitable to take a single sentence in isolation.

"The past does have its own past, present and future, therefore. From a given past event you will only materialize a particular future, but "The past does have its own past, present and future, therefore. From a given past event you will only materialize a particular future, but the event itself continues, and possesses a dimensionality of its own — or rather a multidimensionality that you also possess."
—Nature of Personal Reality Chapter 14: Session 653, April 4, 1973

So if I had killed someone in the past, "the event itself continues, and possesses a dimensionality of its own — or rather a multidimensionality that you also possess." There is no evading personal responsibility.

"A new belief in the present, however, can cause changes in the past on a neuronal level. You must understand that basically time is simultaneous. Present beliefs can indeed alter the past. In some cases of healing, in the spontaneous disappearance of cancer, for instance, or of any other disease, certain alterations are made that affect cellular memory, genetic codes, or neuronal patterns in the past."
—NoPR Chapter 14: Session 654, April 9, 1973

This applies to phenomena such as healing. It does not mean that I am excused from an evil act that I committed in the past.

Seth's idea of karma differs from the Hindu/Buddhist idea that it is punishment:

"Nor does karma say anything about an eye for an eye, nor is there in karma any suggestion of punishment. Karma is merely in the physical plane, the result of personal development, and represents the maturing realization that we are all psychically and physically part of All There Is, and that when we wound, it is not another that we wound but ourselves."
—TES3 Session 89 September 19, 1964

[happiness]

happiness, did Seth actually say that?

Yes, "The moment as you think of it, then, is the creative framework through which you, the nonphysical self, constantly form corporeal reality; and through that window into earthly existence you form both its future and its past." (The Nature of Personal Reality, Chapter 14, Session 654, April 9, 1973, the paragraph at 11:21)

And "... there is not just one past. There are also probable pasts therefore, that exist quite outside your comprehension. You choose one particular group of these, and latch upon this group of events as the only ones possible, not realising that you have selected from an infinite variety of past events." (Seth Speaks, Chapter 7, paragraph 26)

[happiness]

So if I had killed someone in the past, "the event itself continues, and possesses a dimensionality of its own — or rather a multidimensionality that you also possess." There is no evading personal responsibility.

If I killed someone in the past and then changed my past to erase my evil act, then I would become a new version of myself with a newly created past, where I did not commit the murder. My original past still exists and has its own future. But since I am now a new version of myself, the original me who committed the murder would now become a different parallel version of me, in another parallel reality/universe. I have successfully jumped from that parallel reality where I were guilty of murder to my current reality where I am innocent of the murder. So I have erased my evil deed, or to sugar coat it to make it sound better, I have healed myself.

[Deb]

I think it's all about probable selves.

Because of simultaneous time, we could theoretically go "back" to any juncture in our past and make a different choice, follow a different probability. All probabilities are valid. We may do it all the time, but don't realize it, because by making a different choice in our "past" we would only have memories the path we chose. I suppose we'd have to do it in cooperation with the other probable self with whom we change places.

There was a fun movie that came out a few years ago involving probable realities. Beautifully produced too.

[Sena]

If I killed someone in the past and then changed my past to erase my evil act

happiness, Seth NEVER said that I could change my past to erase my evil act.

"The moment as you think of it, then, is the creative framework through which you, the nonphysical self, constantly form corporeal reality; and through that window into earthly existence you form both its future and its past." (The Nature of Personal Reality, Chapter 14, Session 654, April 9, 1973, the paragraph at 11:21)

This means that if I killed someone in the past, that is a reality I create in the present moment.

[Sena]

If I killed someone in the past and then changed my past to erase my evil act, then I would become a new version of myself with a newly created past, where I did not commit the murder.

happiness, this is not Seth's teaching. There may be a probable reality in which I did not commit murder, but that is another version of myself. Having other versions of myself does not mean that my present reality can be erased. NOTHING is erased in Seth's universe. Your questions are useful in clarifying Seth's teachings.

[happiness]

happiness, this is not Seth's teaching. NOTHING is erased in Seth's universe.

Seth talks about altering and erasing the past here:
"A new belief in the present, however, can cause changes in the past on a neuronal level. Present beliefs can indeed alter the past. In some cases of healing, in the spontaneous disappearance of cancer, for instance, or any other disease, certain alterations are made that affect cellular memory, genetic codes, or neuronal patterns in the past. In such instances there is, as easily as I can explain it, a reaching into deep biological structures as they existed at one time; at that point the probabilities are altered, and the condition erased in your present — but also in your past. ... As far as you are concerned, the present is your point of action, focus, and power, and from that point of volition, you form both your future and past. ... If, in the present, one past event can be altered within your neuronal structure, however, then basically no event is safe from such change. ... The current beliefs will re-program and alter past experience. It is not simply that past, forgotten, unconsciously perceived events will be put together in a new way and organised under a new heading, but that in that past (now not perceivable), the entire bodily response to seemingly past events will change. Your desire or belief will literally be reaching back into time, teaching the nerves new tricks. Definite reorganisation in that past will occur in your present, allowing you to behave in entirely new fashions. Learned behaviour therefore alters not only present and future but also past conduct." (NoPR, chapter 14, session 654)

Specifically, a past condition or a past conduct can be erased, and it's not only erased in your present — but also in your past.

So I might have killed someone in the past, but I can erase this horrible past by making myself believe that I did not kill him. And by erasing this past, I heal myself from the dis-ease this past is haunting me.

[Sena]

So I might have killed someone in the past, but I can erase this horrible past by making myself believe that I did not kill him.

If I make myself believe what is not true, I am kidding myself, defrauding myself. I am sure that is what many criminals do. Roman Catholic priests who have abused children convince themselves that they did nothing wrong. It is completely contrary to Seth's teaching.

[happiness]

So I might have killed someone in the past, but I can erase this horrible past by making myself believe that I did not kill him.

If I make myself believe what is not true, I am kidding myself, defrauding myself. I am sure that is what many criminals do. Roman Catholic priests who have abused children convince themselves that they did nothing wrong. It is completely contrary to Seth's teaching.

But if I can alter my past, erase a condition, so as to achieve the spontaneous disappearance of cancer (NoPR, chapter 14, session 654), then I could also apply the same technique to achieve the spontaneous disappearance of a murderous past. The technique that Seth shared does not apply only to the area of healing cancer. As Seth said: "basically no event is safe from such change. Learned behaviour therefore alters also past conduct." (NoPR, chapter 14, session 654)

If those Roman Catholic priests convince themselves that they did nothing wrong, then they would get scot free, according to this principle. And Seth also mentioned that there is no karma:

"But in the terms used there is no karma to be paid off as punishment unless you believe that there are crimes for which you must pay. In larger terms there is no cause and effect either, though these are root assumptions in your reality.*" (The Nature of Personal Reality (A Seth Book), chapter 9, session 636)

And Seth also said:

There are no limitations to the self. You can adopt artificial limitations through your own ignorance, however. (Seth Speaks, chapter 1, paragraph 49)

So these Roman Catholic priests would make use of this technique to free themselves from the limitations of karma, and from the limitations of their disgraceful past. Since the universe/reality does not impose any limitations on them, they are free to start afresh, without any trace of their disgraceful acts. Since "thoughts create reality" (Seth Speaks, chapter 6, paragraph 36), these priests could erase their past and start afresh by convincing themselves they did not commit such disgraceful acts, and those incriminating evidence and witnesses would be erased from reality.

[Deb]

I think it's all about probable selves.

Because of simultaneous time, we could theoretically go "back" to any juncture in our past and make a different choice, follow a different probability. All probabilities are valid. We may do it all the time, but don't realize it, because by making a different choice in our "past" we would only have memories the path we chose.

In such instances there is, as easily as I can explain it, a reaching into deep biological structures as they existed at one time; at that point the probabilities are altered, and the condition erased in your present — but also in your past. ...

I feel this is what Seth meant about "erase": it only makes sense that we would only know the history of the probability we chose and live. If we manage to go "back" before we had the condition and choose a different probability, one in which we don't have the condition, then it will not be a part of our past or present. But that the condition could still exist as a probability.

I'm pretty sure it's not that easy to do, I think someone would have to be pretty advanced to do it. In all spontaneous remissions I've read about, the people remember being sick and usually have some evidence in the form of x-rays, etc., scars from surgery. The ones that have no evidence or memory of ever being sick, we wouldn't know about, because in their current probability it never happened.

And Seth's non-karma means that in the big scheme of things, we as conscious beings choose roles to play. We will sometimes play the perpetrator, sometimes play the victim, in order to develop compassion and understanding. We also go through a sort of debriefing or after leaving the physical body and have an opportunity to review our choices and behavior and will have opportunities to rectify it. Like this:

Seth's teaching on karma needs to be compared to the Buddhist version. According to the Buddhist version, if I killed somebody in a previous life, I WILL be murdered in this life. Seth's version is that I have a choice. I may choose to be murdered, or I may choose to be a counsellor who tries to help the victims of crime.

As far as the priests: I don't know a thing about psychology, but I'm sure they all have different feelings about what they are doing. But they are not erasing anything by pretending it's OK. I don't think Catholics believe in Karma anyway. The priests are lying to themselves in order to rationalize or excuse their behavior.

[Sena]

The priests are lying to themselves in order to rationalize or excuse their behavior.

Deb, that is correct, and these priests would only visit a Seth forum to pour scorn on Seth's teachings.

[Sena]

A seth quote on killing:

"There is one commandment above all, in practical terms — a Christian commandment that can be used as a yardstick. It is good because it is something you can understand practically: "Thou shalt not kill." That is clear enough. Under most conditions you know when you have killed. That [commandment] is a much better road to follow, for example than: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," for many of you do not love yourselves to begin with, and can scarcely love your neighbor as well. The idea is that if you love your neighbor you will not treat him poorly, much less kill him — but the commandment: "Thou shalt not kill," says you shall not kill your neighbor no matter how you feel about him. So let us say in a new commandment: "Thou shalt not kill even in the pursuit of your ideals."2

What does that mean? In practical terms it would mean that you would not wage war for the sake of peace. It would mean that you did not kill animals in experiments, taking their lives in order to protect the sacredness of human life. That would be a prime directive: "Thou shalt not kill even in the pursuit of your ideals" — for man has killed for the sake of his ideals as much as he has ever killed for greed, or lust, or even the pursuit of power on its own merits.

You are a fanatic if you consider (underlined) possible killing for the pursuit of your ideal. For example, your ideal may be — for ideals differ — the production of endless energy for the uses of mankind, and you may believe so fervently in that ideal — this added convenience to life — that you considered the hypothetical possibility of that convenience being achieved at the risk of losing some lives along the way. That is fanaticism."

—NoME Chapter 7: Session 850, May 2, 1979

How does this compare to Christian teaching? The Christian teaching is that it is okay to kill in a "just war". So the Pope sent his army to the Holy Land to kill Muslims in the Crusades. This sort of killing is condemned by Seth.

According to Seth, it is wrong even to kill in self-defence:

"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.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

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."

—NoPR Chapter 8: Session 634, January 22, 1973

[happiness]

But Self also said there is no karma.

"But in the terms used there is no karma to be paid off as punishment unless you believe that there are crimes for which you must pay. In larger terms there is no cause and effect either, though these are root assumptions in your reality.*" (The Nature of Personal Reality (A Seth Book), Chapter 9, Session 636)

That means a person who commits murder would not face punishment, not any more so than a person who doesn't commit murder. If the murderer ever does receive punishment, it must then be self imposed: he must have believed in karma, and so imposed the punishment upon himself by attracting it to himself. So in the name of healing, to free himself from karma and self-imposed limitations, he could make use of Seth's technique to erase his murderous past and start afresh.

Moreover, since everyone creates his own reality, then even the victim chooses to be killed, even if he says otherwise. Then in a deep way, the murderer is actually doing the victim a favour by killing him. The murderer kills the victim because the victim asks him to, in a deep way. Then in that case, shouldn't the murderer be paid/rewarded by the victim, and all the more so since the murderer also has to cope with the guilt and punishment imposed onto him, both by himself and by society? So in a deep way, the murderer is actually making a great sacrifice for being willing to take up the role of a murderer, that is being shunned and despised by so many.

[Deb]

That means a person who commits murder would not face punishment, not any more so than a person who doesn't commit murder.

I've hard a hard time accepting the Christian belief that someone like Ted Bundy can kill and torture so many women, be in prison and put to death, would suddenly accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, and therefore go to Heaven. While I, an ordinary humane and environmentally conscious person, will spend the rest of eternity burning in Hell, ONLY because I don't accept Jesus as my personal savior. My son, when he was three, would come home from neighbors' houses and ask me if it will hurt when he burns in Hell. Three!

There are many Seth concepts that are hard to accept at first. Due to our beliefs, they can initially provoke defensiveness or anger. Telling a non-Seth person who has a physical condition or who is unhappy with their life that they make their own reality will most times result in outrage. The idea of no karma, punishment, hell, etc. will offend people who have certain religious beliefs. But Seth's ideas can also make us examine any defensive response we may have, figure out what beliefs we have accepted as absolute truths are causing the response, and then ask ourselves why we are holding onto them. Taking a more objective look at our beliefs helps us to decide whether to keep or discard them.

Reading Seth has really opened my mind to look at my "truths" from different angles. He's really made me question my thinking and to go deeper. He will do that to people. I love it.

We are here to learn to be compassionate, understanding, lean towards love rather than hate (he had some interesting things to say about hate, where it's actually love+idealism). But to not harm others due to a fear of being punished is not the goal—it's to not harm others because of respect, compassion, acceptance. That's the challenge. If fear of punishment/karma/hell actually worked, we wouldn't have all the crime we have.

So in a deep way, the murderer is actually making a great sacrifice for being willing to take up the role of a murderer, that is being shunned and despised by so many.

That's a nice way to look at all of that. We have to keep in mind (if we are to believe Seth's teachings), that this 3D plane of existence we are in is a stage and we are all actors playing out dramas. Seth said somewhere (can't find the quote yet) something like "you have to believe there was a crime" (or victim or murder) because there is no death if we really are eternal beings. Seth has also said a couple of times that when will kill or harm another, we are actually killing ourselves.

"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."
—SS Chapter 12: Session 550, September 28, 1970

I thought this fit in nicely with your comment about a murderer's guilt:

"Now: in those terms, and in the terms of this discussion, specifically, all assassins are paid assassins hired by the victims. Again, in the terms of this discussion, many murderers are overwhelmed by a sense of guilt, and the murderous act pinpoints the reason for the guilt—so the victim pays the murderer by giving a clear-cut, unassailable reason for a monstrous guilt that was before formless, and even more frightening, since it seemed to have no particular base, but an overwhelming vitality."
—TPS5 Deleted Session September 20, 1978

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Yeah but,

In regards to karma, murder and punishment, Seth also says this:



TES8, Session 397 (the bold font is mine)

Evil, so termed, is a lack of knowledge, a lack of fulfillment, a lack of growth, measured against that which has felt inward enough to understand more of its nature. Evil is therefore less desirable. The whole process however is toward understanding in which the evil is doubled and erased, but the growth must come from something that is not yet grown, and you cannot call a seed evil because it is not yet the flower.

We will in the future deal with the problem of evil, and hint of some of its implications in our life after death material.

Disease is not evil, for example. 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.

-jbseth

[Deb]

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.

Great quote, that makes sense to me. I love Seth's explanation of what we call evil being a lack of knowledge. That came up recently in another topic.

Seth said a couple of times I recall that in essence one must "pay" or "take the consequences" for the harmful action and the intent.

How do you interpret that? Pay in what way? What consequence? In my mind, the soul would need to relive the situation until understanding finally sinks in. Is there more than that?

I imagine during the after-death review and counseling, a soul that has done some evil deed here would feel a sense of shame and failure.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb,

I'll answer your question about how I interpret this quote in a follow on post here, but before I do, there was one more paragraph that I really should have added to this quote. This paragraph has to do with value fulfillment and the inner self.

I'll add it here below in green font:




TES8, Session 397 (the bold font is mine)

Evil, so termed, is a lack of knowledge, a lack of fulfillment, a lack of growth, measured against that which has felt inward enough to understand more of its nature. Evil is therefore less desirable. The whole process however is toward understanding in which the evil is doubled and erased, but the growth must come from something that is not yet grown, and you cannot call a seed evil because it is not yet the flower.

We will in the future deal with the problem of evil, and hint of some of its implications in our life after death material.

Disease is not evil, for example. 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.

The child is not evil because he is not a man, and cannot be judged for his childishness. Value fulfillment is always working, yet there is between those two statements—you realize the ones to which I refer—the idea of judgment as an impetus and spur against the inner self's knowledge of the growth that must come.




-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

In Reply #16 above, you said:

Seth said a couple of times I recall that in essence one must "pay" or "take the consequences" for the harmful action and the intent.

How do you interpret that?


Here's my interpretation.

I think what Seth is really talking about here is growth opportunities and value fulfillment.

These growth opportunities "can" come from the cycle of reincarnation experiences but they don't necessarily have to.  For example, a man can murder someone and have no emotional feelings about it one way or the other.  Then, while he's in prison, he discovers that someone murdered his sister, whom here dearly loved. In this way he comes to understand the consequences of his actions including the pain and hurt that he caused the family of the man he murdered.

On the other hand, these growth opportunities can also come from the cycle of reincarnation experiences. In one life, a person may have been a member of a murderous horde, such as a member of Attila the Hun, or Genghis Khan, clan for example where he killed many people without a concern. Then, this person may have "chosen" to come back as a Jewish person during the time of the holocaust (as I'm sure you recall, in the past we've talked about Seth's comments regarding some of the Jewish people who participated in the holocaust, and why Seth says they chose too).

In regards to the person who chose to come back as a Jewish person during the time of the holocaust, this was a choice that was made by the person, though the personality who lived this life, may not necessarily be consciously aware of making this choice. 

The real confusing issue here is that while this sounds a lot like karma and punishment, it really isn't either one according to Seth. Instead it's what he refers to as growth and value fulfillment.

-jbseth

[happiness]

Hi jbseth,

The real confusing issue here is that while this sounds a lot like karma and punishment, it really isn't either one according to Seth. Instead it's what he refers to as growth and value fulfillment.

What you are saying, it seems, is that one must always pay for one's actions. It's just that this payment is not supposed to be punishing but it's to help you grow and fulfil you. But no matter how you want to interpret it, this payment has to be paid, for example, by a murderer.

Then, how do you interpret the following quote?

"But in the terms used there is no karma to be paid off as punishment unless you believe that there are crimes for which you must pay. In larger terms there is no cause and effect either, though these are root assumptions in your reality.*" (The Nature of Personal Reality (A Seth Book), Chapter 9, Session 636)

And how do you view the statement "Revenge is sweet"? In a more general sense, it may not be necessary for the revenge to be done by you. For example, people take satisfaction in seeing a villain in a drama finally receives the punishment or karma he long deserves. How do you view these people?

[jbseth]

Hi happiness, Hi All,

I've found that Seth was very inconsistent and sometimes even contradictory or appeared to be, in his use of certain words and concepts; karma being one of them.

In TES8, Session 388, he says the following:

Now. The basic idea of karma is not punishment. Karma presents the opportunity for development; to make use of opportunities that were not taken advantage of, to fill in gaps of ignorance, to enlarge understanding through experience, to do what should be done.

Free choice is always involved. The purpose is always knowledge and development, rather than punishment, self-punishment.


Then right after saying this, Seth tells us a very interesting reincarnational story about  Peg, the wife of John Pitre, a man who called Jane and asked for a phone session with Seth, which is Session 388.

In this session, Seth tells the story that in a past life Peg was a man who lived in Italy who was left with a crippled and neurotic daughter. The man, Peg, spends his life taking care for the daughter, and while doing this nobody would have him as a husband because of his daughter. Then, when the daughter gets older, she marries, and leaves her father, Peg, to fend for himself. At this point there is nobody left to marry him because he was too old and he, Peg, became embittered.

In the previous life, John Pitre, Peg's husband was the man who married the daughter. In this life, the daughter's father, Peg, is the woman who married John Pitre. They are working out relationship issues.

Is this karma???

So, why does Seth talk about karma in this session and does he really mean karma here or is he really talking about value fulfillment? If he's talking about value fulfillment, and he does tell us that karma doesn't exist then why is he using the word karma here?


I have my own beliefs about all of this. I think that when Seth used the term karma on occasion, he was actually referring to his concept of value fulfillment and not actually karma. Furthermore, I think he did so, with the belief that the person he was talking to, at the time, Rob, Jane, or whoever, would understand that this is what he actually meant.

On the other hand, there were times when he talks about karma, and he actually means the concept of karma, and not value fulfillment.

Because of this, I think that each one of us will probably have to resolve these types of issues for ourselves.

- jbseth

[happiness]

On the other hand, there were times when he talks about karma, and he actually means the concept of karma, and not value fulfillment.

Hi jbseth, thank you for your post. It's helpful in clearing up some misconceptions.

After some thoughts, I think Seth is saying karma when defined as a mandatory, inevitable payment in the form of punishment, does not exist. But when defined as an opportunity for growth, then it does exist. It is an opportunity, meaning it's not mandatory or imposed upon you by the Universe/God/All That Is. People who choose to experience karma, or the "bad" experiences that karma brings to them, are choosing those experiences to grow. In other words, they are choosing those experiences for their own benefit, for their own "selfish" reasons, and not because they want to pay back their victims.

Man's perception of karma is closely tied with his concept of justice and fairness. He believes that a murderer must pay for his crimes, for otherwise, there will be no justice. So he finds comfort in believing that the Universe/God/All That Is imposes punishments upon John Pitre, for example, in his current reincarnation to pay Peg back. But Pitre's "bad" experiences were never forced onto him. He chose them himself willingly for his own "selfish" reasons, to fulfil his own needs.

In this light, then, it would seem that the Universe/God/All That Is is unjust, because Pitre was never punished for his crimes, for even those "punishments" he experienced were chosen by himself for his own benefit. In other words, those "punishments" were in fact presents.

[T.M.]

If you factor in that all lives are lived at once, perhaps  life A :is a murderer. Life B :pays for the act. Life C: is a victim.
Overall the entity is dealing with aggression, and how to handle aggressive energies.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

In addition to this, Seth had some interesting things to say about the entity. Apparently it is the entity who decides what growth experiences we need so that we can grow in regards to our understanding.

The following quote is in regards to the life of John Pitre and his wife, Peg.  By the way, I should have mentioned that the reason John asked for the Seth session, is because his wife, Peg, was seriously ill at the time; close to deaths door.

TES 8 Session 388: (the bold font is mine)

[...]

There were many reasons why John and his wife met and began their relationship. While such situations as Peggy's illness are chosen by the entity, the individual is always left to work out its own solution. Complete recovery, illness or early death, for example, are not preordained on the part of the entity. The general situation is set up in response to deep inner involvements.

The problem is a challenge set up by the entity for one of its personalities, but the outcome is left up to the individual. This was the major stumbling block, the last major one for this personality. Other lives had been fulfilling, but the personality had never set for itself (pause) any position in the past that was not one of strength.

[...]

John remembers subconsciously the old situation. This is partially the cause of some of the negative feelings, but there is no guilt in any (underlined) of this. No one save the individual entity knows in what directions weaknesses lie that need correction, and it sets about forming life dramas in which these can be faced.

His wife chose to solve several problems this time, rather than string them out. This is a characteristic of that entity—an impatience and yet a daring, because the situation represented such a challenge. All of the weak points were intensified, hence the gravity of the physical condition.
The entity preferred this rather than a series of smaller difficulties. In this John acquiesced, to learn patience and forbearing, to take what he considered his medicine in one dose, so to speak.

[...]

If the overall entity feels that the problem has been sufficiently solved, then it will end this life situation. But there is also a connection here with John, and the wife's personality will not leave until John has also sufficiently achieved all benefits from the relationship that his entity hoped for.


-jbseth

[Deb]

Going back to this quote that Sena posted up above:

"Nor does karma say anything about an eye for an eye, nor is there in karma any suggestion of punishment. Karma is merely in the physical plane, the result of personal development, and represents the maturing realization that we are all psychically and physically part of All There Is, and that when we wound, it is not another that we wound but ourselves."
—TES3 Session 89 September 19, 1964

First off, I'm thinking that Seth used the term karma in order to communicate with us in our own words and concepts, as he's said with other concepts as well. Karma is label for a human concept that is meant to control people's behavior. To make people think that if they do something deemed wrong, they will have hell to pay in another life (or there's Instant Karma, to quote John Lennon). It's a religious concept, just like the Christians believing that if you sin you end up in hell. And if that's not enough to scare someone into being nice rather than naughty, there is worse yet, "visit the sins of the father on the son." Seth is saying in reality that what we call karma is not a system of crimes and punishments, or cause and effect, but rather there are players in our physical reality playing different roles in order to develop an understanding of all perspectives.

Because we have linear time here, we experience events as sequential and so a murderer becoming a victim in another lifetime appears to us as cause and effect. Someone can just as easily be a victim in this life, and the murderer in another. Take away linear time, consider all incarnations happen at once, and it would become apparent to us that they is no cause and effect.

If you factor in that all lives are lived at once, perhaps  life A :is a murderer. Life B :pays for the act. Life C: is a victim.
Overall the entity is dealing with aggression, and how to handle aggressive energies.

I bet there are many things we learn from these dramas.

Man's perception of karma is closely tied with his concept of justice and fairness. He believes that a murderer must pay for his crimes, for otherwise, there will be no justice. So he finds comfort in believing that the Universe/God/All That Is imposes punishments

I agree. I think that's where this comes from:

And how do you view the statement "Revenge is sweet"? In a more general sense, it may not be necessary for the revenge to be done by you. For example, people take satisfaction in seeing a villain in a drama finally receives the punishment or karma he long deserves. How do you view these people?

From the human aspect, we want someone to pay dearly for harm they've done to someone we love. We just don't have all the information, can't see the big picture (per Seth a "lack of perception"). It's a part of the human condition, which is why thrillers and shoot 'em up movies are so popular. Not everyone feels that way. It goes back to our love of opposites — good vs. evil. We NEVER get tired of the same story line.

The child is not evil because he is not a man, and cannot be judged for his childishness. Value fulfillment is always working, yet there is between those two statements—you realize the ones to which I refer—the idea of judgment as an impetus and spur against the inner self's knowledge of the growth that must come.

Nice addition jbseth, that really does add more explanation to the quote.

I think what Seth is really talking about here is growth opportunities and value fulfillment.

Totally!

I still need to read your latest post, you snuck it in while I was working on this one. Thanks for all the input!

[Sena]

If you factor in that all lives are lived at once, perhaps  life A :is a murderer. Life B :pays for the act. Life C: is a victim.
Overall the entity is dealing with aggression, and how to handle aggressive energies.

T.M., that is an excellent way of putting it. I have some pain in the right side of my chest at the moment. Perhaps I bashed someone in the chest in a previous life. It is not karma because I have chosen to experience the pain. The future could be understanding the nature of aggression. All That Is is learning the nature of aggression. This solves the "Problem of Evil":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

All That Is is completely different to the imaginary "omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God" who lords it over "his" creation. That God is a delusion of monotheists.
All That Is is neither a he nor a she and cannot be separated from Creation.

[T.M.]

Hi Sena,

In one of the Seth books I was reading Seth said when an entity wants to understand something, say aggression, or abundance, or slavery, whatever it is; The entity will have multiple lives spread out in the past, present and future. Each life will be focused on a particular aspect of the subject at hand. In my example above there would likely also be a life of an aggressive bully.
I'm starting to suspect that counterparts would be opposites. The victim has a repressed aggressive bully, and vice versa, and the 2 are counterparts to each other.



Thank you for recommending book #9 of The early sessions to Deb. I don't recall exactly which thread that was in.
I got it on kindle and am really enjoying it!

[jbseth]

Hi T.M., Hi All,

If you factor in that all lives are lived at once, perhaps  life A :is a murderer. Life B :pays for the act. Life C: is a victim.
Overall the entity is dealing with aggression, and how to handle aggressive energies.

I definitely agree. I think that this is a big component of what we've been talking about here.

As an entity sets of its various life experiences, for, let's say Personality A, Personality B, Personality C,..., it also learns and grows from their personal life experiences.

Let's say that in one life, Personality A, is a murderer and in one life Personality B is an animal hunter.  Then in another life Personality A will deal with becoming a murder victim and Personality B will deal with becoming the victim of an animal attack.

In this way, all involved, the entity and each one of its individual Personalities will have various opportunities for growth.

Nice catch.

-jbseth

[happiness]

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.

Seth said a couple of times I recall that in essence one must "pay" or "take the consequences" for the harmful action and the intent.

"Must" implies karma is mandatory. But this contradicts what Seth said in TES8, session 388:

Free choice is always involved.

How do you reconcile these two sentences?

[T.M.]

I think it's the intent that is the kicker here. The intent of ill will towards another. Be that other a person, animal, or a plant.
I bet it comes down to hate. In the end, it's really self hate/hatred projected outwards. That's what must be paid and atoned for. As well as learning to live without building up hateful attitudes.
All punishment is likely self punishment. Perhaps the free will aspect in that is how one discharges it. By helping others one has harmed, or experiencing what the particular act one committed feels like by going through the same thing. Or maybe just forgiving oneself and other's.

[Deb]

I think it's the intent that is the kicker here. The intent of ill will towards another.

I agree, we are here to learn how to overcome this type of thing. Interestingly, I was listening to Chapter 15 of SS (565) dealing with the Lumanians and what they did to overcome violence. They went overboard. I think Seth said we are still working out the issues thanks to them ("I have been speaking about the Lumanians in some detail because they are a part of your psychic heritage.... While they were not able to solve the problem of violence as they understood it in your reality, their passionate desire to do so still rings throughout your own psychic environment.")

I still think Seth is using the word karma because it is our word: "What you call karma." In the same way he talks about past and future, even though he says time is simultaneous, most of the time prefacing it with "your concept."

Here's a quote that contain both karma and free will. If this has already been shared, sorry! I'm losing track with such a long topic filled with quotes, not to mention we now have two topics on karma.

"With his superior knowledge the entity must leave hands off. His, the entity's, only hope is to allow the personality complete independence, for it is the personality who understands more clearly than he the conditions of the particular plane upon which his existence happens.

"There is here no puppet, and there is no land that moves the strings. If there were you see, you would indeed have a much more perfect world, but you would not have that one built-in prerequisite: complete as possible existence within all facets, and manipulation within all facets, of a given plane.

"Now. What you call karma has meaning only in basic terms within your particular plane. I do not want to get too complicated. Nevertheless personalities on your plane work out individual problems within that plane through various existences. Here we have also free will, but a continuity so to speak of purposes. No purpose is forced upon any personality. He, the personality, adopts in various reincarnations upon your plane those purposes most in keeping with his own needs. And for Mark's sake may I say that levels of existence do not necessarily imply higher or lower levels, but concentric levels, even as the layers of the subconscious do not imply upper and lower levels, but are merely terms used for the sake of simplicity."
—TES3 Session 95 October 7, 1964

Just found this, I don't have time right now to pull out the book and read the whole session, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

• "[...] But because you do believe that you can murder a man, then murder does exist within your system, and you must deal with it."

• "[...] And murder, therefore, is a crime and must be dealt with as such because you have created it and you must deal with it. [...]"

—TECS1 ESP Class Session, April [1?], 1969 (Specific Date Unknown)

[T.M.]

Hi Deb,

In Tes9 Seth made a reference to what I guess are the lumanians. In a way they still exist. He said their progress is at a snails pace, due to their fear of violence, and potentially dealing with it incorrectly.
He contrasted our system. Saying it is a fast moving system. While mistakes are being made, overall the people here are learning to deal with vast amounts of energy quickly. He also suggests we will correct ourselves as we go along
At least that was my take on my initial reading

[Deb]

In Tes9 Seth made a reference to what I guess are the lumanians. In a way they still exist.

Yes, thanks, he also mentioned that in what I listened to today (I was bike riding, my concentration on the audio book was broken often due to safely maneuvering around a crowded pathway, too many fast bikers in Spandex), but he mentioned they still exist in the same way that probabilities continue to to carry on.

My copy of TES9 just arrived a couple of days ago, I'm REALLY looking forward to digging into it. Hard to believe we are a fast moving system!

[T.M.]

I'm really enjoying TES9, and I bet you will too. I've really had my own struggles with the seemingly injustices of it all sometimes.
This book had some info I  was looking for. He says this is a very intense level of reality. Not everyone can just join in, due to how difficult it can be. He also states there are No Victims here. That we all knew/know what this level of reality is and accepted it as it is before any of us stepped on to the playing field.
I find that immensely comforting

[Neo]

How I've always taken these things about changing our past like Seth talks about, is not necessarily so much about LITERALLY (as in that there would be physical evidence of the past changing) changing the past, but to let go of the negative associations we have of the past, and be able to continue our lives as the better versions of ourselves that we want to be.

Let's take the murder example. Yes, you might have murdered someone. Probably no one thinks that is an ideal predicament to be in, but in that case I think the only way you can ever change your life and move one from that experience is to understand your own actions and the reasons behind them. When you truly understand that, and give thought to it, it becomes easier to forgive ourselves, because when we realize where we went wrong we can learn from our mistakes and learn to not make the same "mistakes" (even though I don't really think that anything is a mistake at all, we just have choices and some of them feel better than others) again. Forgiveness is the only thing that can free us from anything. Forgiveness for others and forgiveness for ourselves. We all make mistakes. Clinging onto them is not going to make the situation any better - you're only prolonging the pain. Forgive yourself and move on. That is the only way to really let go of the past.

(and if my message seem preachy that is just because I'm writing from a passionate place, it is not intended for anyone specifically .)

[happiness]

I've really had my own struggles with the seemingly injustices of it all sometimes.

Seth said one must face or take the consequences of one's actions and intents. Seth also said free choice is always involved. I think the contradiction appears due to a misunderstanding of the concept of free choice. From the following quote, we know that if we do not care for the environment, it will no longer sustain us.

"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."
—SS Chapter 12: Session 550, September 28, 1970

So it seems there is a "limit" to our free choice. For example, we are not allowed to choose a reality where we disregard the environment and still be sustained by it. Even though there exist an infinite number of probable realities for us to choose from, there is no one reality where we could disregard the environment and still be sustained by it, it seems. Such reality does not exist. It's impossible.

Our free choice cannot violate the principle "our thoughts create our reality". When we disregard the environment, the thought we hold is "the environment is unworthy of my concern". This thought would then attract us to the reality where we are unworthy of the environment's support.

So if you interpret the consequence "the environment will no longer sustain us" as karma. Then it seems karma is mandatory and inevitable, for "our thoughts create our reality". But free choice is always involved still, because we could always change our thoughts and get a different reality. There is a mechanism that connects a thought to the manifestation of the reality it attracts. Free will, it seems, cannot interfere with this mechanism.

If this is the case, then the issue now lies in how do we tell which are the mandatory consequences and which are the non-mandatory consequences? From the above quote, the consequence "the environment will no longer sustain us" seems to be mandatory. But how about the case of murder? Would the consequence "you will be killed in your next reincarnation" be mandatory? Remember, free will cannot interfere with the mechanism of manifestation. So how do we tell whether the consequence at the end of the mechanism is "you will be killed in your next reincarnation" or not?

"Good thoughts create good realities" and "bad thoughts create bad realities". Are these considered karma? Do they agree with Seth's teachings?

[jbseth]

Hi Neo, Hi All,
I agree that we sometimes "let go" of the past. However, I also think that we sometimes "forget" the past and in forgetting the past, we don't realize that we've literally changed our past.  Here's an example of what I'm talking about from Seth.

This comes from TES5, Session 234:

We shall consider an example. Suppose that in the past you sat behind a John X in grade four. At the time you sat behind him, you liked him very much. He was then an agreeable fellow, and you considered him as such.

In grade six, let us suppose that you had a severe disagreement with this same John X, and then you disliked him thoroughly. He was a disagreeable fellow in your perceptions.

In twelfth grade you become fast friends. He is once again an agreeable fellow. You know him for several following years. Someone who is supposed to have psychic abilities looks into your past, and tells you that you sat behind a most disagreeable child. Most unlikeable in the earliest grade, and mentions the name John X.

You think that the information is wrong, for John X, you are convinced, is a friend of yours, has always been a friend of yours, and consciously you are convinced that you have always found him agreeable. Consciously you have forgotten the past, and you have remade it.

-jbseth

[T.M.]

"Good thoughts create good realities" and "bad thoughts create bad realities". Are these considered karma? Do they agree with Seth's teachings?

I tried an experiment once, using that sentiment as a guideline. I listened to Louis Hays 101 power thoughts virtually 24/7.
I thought perhaps the constant repetition would override any "negative" thoughts/patterns rolling around in my consciousness.
After about 4 months I had no visible tangible results, or any good changes. I thought by then I would have had all I wanted and nothing but wonderful relationship.
I'm not a Seth expert by any means. My personal experiment did not lead to that "result."
I couldn't personally say that is or isnt Seth's teachings either.
Just from my own experience I would say the conscious mind is a tricky little bugger. It can look at an upside down world and convince you not only is it right side up, everything in it is just peachy. When in reality, the train is in process of going off the cliff.

I think, and this is just from my experience, without a deep abiding under-current of feeling that everything truly is okay, that likely is emanating from a deeper layer than just waking ego; just good thoughts and fluffy affirmations are completely useless, and won't create anything worth having.
That deep abiding under-current/feeling of alrightness usually comes from personal and continual inner work on whatever issues one has.
That's just my thoughts, and that may well be my answer and not work for anyone but me.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

In the Seth book NoPR, "The Individual and the Nature of Personal Reality", Seth talks extensively about beliefs, how they affect us, and how they can be changed.

In this book he tells us that people can have "conflicting" beliefs and sometimes these conflicting beliefs can subvert any attempts we make for improvement.

He also tells us that people can also have "invisible" beliefs, which are beliefs that are sometimes overshadowed by other beliefs and so these "invisible" beliefs can be difficult to find.

He also tells us that all of these beliefs can be uncovered but that if you don't successfully do this belief work, (figure out what individual beliefs you have, why you have them, and what do you want to do with them – keep them or change them) then you may not have success in changing your life.

I've found that NoPR is probably the most practical and beneficial book, that I've ever read, and for me at least, I've personally changed a lot of things for the positive by using it.

-jbseth

[T.M.]

Thanks Jbseth
That's what I was thinking about! Might be a good time for me to revisit that book as well.

[happiness]

You think that the information is wrong, for John X, you are convinced, is a friend of yours, has always been a friend of yours, and consciously you are convinced that you have always found him agreeable. Consciously you have forgotten the past, and you have remade it.

It's quite confusing whether you have changed/remade your past or not, because if you had, how would the psychic still be able to see the "original" version of your past where you dislike John X?

[jbseth]

Hi T.M.

If you have the book NoPR, check out Session 645, in Chapter 11.

This particular chapter has a lot of good information on beliefs, bridge beliefs, core beliefs and then after all of that, Seth uses Jane as an example where he explains some belief issues that she had about being a writer and how these it conflicted with some of her beliefs about being psychic.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi happiness,

I think of it in terms of probable realities. All probable realities exist.

This person that Seth is talking about, "you", moved from a reality where he didn't like John X in grades 6 to 12, into a probable reality where he did.

Psychics pick up information from probable realities all the time. This is one of the reasons why many of their predictions are wrong. They failed to predict the events of probable reality that was eventually actualized.

-jbseth

[happiness]

Seth said karma does not exist. This is mainly for people who believe that because of some previous crime they have committed, they will be punished in the future. Yet he said (1) free choice is always involved and (2) you create your past from the present moment. The contradiction, I suspect, is in some way due to our misinterpretation of time. Seth's main objective is to teach us that we are not at the mercy of the past that we couldn't change. It is to teach us that we can always control our reality via our thoughts. Our thoughts in the present moment create our past and our future.

Bad thoughts, bad intents and bad actions in the past lead to bad consequences in the future. This is an interpretation of karma. In this interpretation, an individual would feel powerless because he believes he is already predestined to receive bad consequences in the future, as he believes the past is out of his control. I think Seth was trying to say this version of karma does not exist.

Bad thoughts, bad intent and bad actions in the "present" lead to bad consequences in the "present". This is another interpretation of karma. And I think this version does exist. If you accept Seth's statement that we create our past from the present, then the reason why we killed someone yesterday is due to our bad thoughts in the present moment. Our bad thoughts in the present moment then select, from an infinite number of probable past, a version of the past where we killed someone. And by the principle "our thoughts create our reality", our bad thoughts in the present moment then attract to us a version of the future where we will pay for our "crime", selected from an infinite number of probable future. In this case then, there is no predestination, for we have the power to choose which kind of future we want to experience, based on our present thoughts/beliefs and not based on a past that is beyond our control.

In this second version of karma, you will pay for the consequences of your intents and actions (via your choice of the future). Yet at the same time, free will is always involved (though you may not be conscious that you make the choice). Add in Seth's concept that all realities are simultaneous, and we get a nice, consistent picture.

In this light, the first version of karma is a simplification of the second version, and so it's true in a way. But it's easily misinterpreted, making people feel trapped and powerless. It is, then, not difficult to understand why Buddhism teaches people about karma, and very often by using the simplified version, as many people may not be receptive to the concept that all time are simultaneous. Interestingly, this concept about time also ties in very nicely with the eternal existence of the soul, for if you exist this present moment, then you exist for eternity, as all moments are the present moment. The fear of death or the future terminated existence of the soul originates from a lack of understanding of this concept.

In our usual interpretation of time, the reason why you killed someone yesterday is because you hated him yesterday (for example). But in the all-realities-are-simultaneous interpretation, the reason why you killed someone yesterday is because you hated him now, and you project that hatred into the past, thereby creating the version of the past where you killed him.

[T.M.]

Hi Happiness

"Bad thoughts, bad intent and bad actions in the "present" lead to bad consequences in the "present". This is another interpretation of karma. And I think this version does exist. If you accept Seth's statement that we create our past from the present, then the reason why we killed someone yesterday is due to our bad thoughts in the present moment"

It occurs to me that perhaps it's not the bad thoughts leading to bad actions = karma.
Perhaps it's identifying as a bad person, using the belief of bad thoughts as evidence for that.
If one identifies as a bad person, then it would logically follow that punishment is at the very least deserved.
It's the identification with the thought of being bad that's creating events in past/present/future.
The opposite would also apply.
Even if a person did something bad, if overall they identify as a good person, then events in the past/present/future will mirror that belief.

[happiness]

Perhaps it's identifying as a bad person, using the belief of bad thoughts as evidence for that.
If one identifies as a bad person, then it would logically follow that punishment is at the very least deserved.
It's the identification with the thought of being bad that's creating events in past/present/future.
The opposite would also apply.
Even if a person did something bad, if overall they identify as a good person, then events in the past/present/future will mirror that belief.

Hi T.M., I don't think anyone identifies himself as a bad person, even for a murderer.

A man who hates always believes himself justified. He never hates anything that he believes to be good. He thinks he is being just, therefore, in his hatred, but the hatred itself forms a very strong claim that will follow him throughout his lives, until he learns that only hatred itself is the destroyer. (SS, chapter 12, somewhere in the middle 20% of the chapter)

So a murderer believes he is justified to kill another person, because that person deserves it. He believes he is killing for justice. He may concede that he is doing a bad deed, but I don't think he sees himself, in all honesty, as a bad/evil person.

[T.M.]

Hi Happiness,

I think people identify as either good or bad. They may or may not acknowledge it.

[happiness]

I think people identify as either good or bad. They may or may not acknowledge it.

This is a belief. And if you hold onto this belief, then you will experience your world as such, finding evidence that supports your this belief. You will find people who identify themselves as bad and do not acknowledge it, or in other words, bad people who are pretending to be good people.

But as Seth said, evil simply does not exist. So those people who identify themselves as bad and do not acknowledge it, are in fact good people. In other words, these people are good people who are pretending to be "bad people who are pretending to be good people".

[Deb]

Warning: My analytical self is taking the night off so I'm going freestyle.

MY belief is that everyone feels differently about themselves. Just from personal experience, I've known some people feel they can do no wrong (rationalization at work), some people who see one small part of their personality or habits they consider defective and obsess about it to the point they block out the fact that they are mostly "good" (good by whose definition?), people who actually admire what most would consider abhorrent behavior and try to emulate it—and everything in between. One thing that I've become aware of from reading Seth, is that there is no black and white. To quote the Monkees, "Only Shades of Gray."

I spent 15 years working at law firms, and was told more than once that I would be the perfect juror. I wasn't sure if that was an insult or a compliment or just an observation. But I'm finally starting to understand.

Useless Trivia: I once got to see Micky Dolenz play polo at a local field in the 90s. He was quite good!

[T.M.]

Hi Deb

15 years in law firms! you have my respect and admiration.
I bet you see a lot in an occupation like that.

I loved the Monkeys tv show. Watched it a lot when I was younger. Harkens back to simpler times and better days in this country, for me anyways.

That would have been fun to see Micky too