Probable you?

[Deb]

What are your probable selves doing? Who are your other incarnations? Have you ever had a sense for what time period, gender, personality, occupation? Dreams of being someone else? Have you had sense of information or skill sharing or bleed through from another incarnation or probable self?

I came across these quotes not long ago, there are probably (no pun) more related ones to find. But they got me thinking...

"If you wanted to be a doctor and are now in a different profession, then in some other probable reality you are a doctor. If you have abilities that you are not using here, they are being used elsewhere."

. . .

"...often what seems to you to be an inspiration is a thought experienced but not actualized on the part of another self. You tune in and actualize it instead, you see....

"Ideas that you have entertained and not used may be picked up in this same manner by other probable yous. Each of these probable selves consider themselves the real you, of course, and to any one of them you would be the probable self; but through the inner senses all of you are aware of your part in this gestalt"

Session 565, Seth Speaks

[T.M.]

I've been thinking about probable selves vs. counterparts lately. I think probable selves are created, or emerge at deep emotional points. Where there's a strong emotional pull in different directions.

Not too long after I read Seth Speaks a long time ago, I encountered what I believe to be a probable self in a dream state. She was nearly identical to me except she was living how I really wanted too, basically in a mountain lodge. She was as surprised at me as I was at her. It was a very brief glimpse. I hadn't really processed or ingested the Seth material on any but the most superficial level at the time.

A few years ago I was deeply thinking and rereading about probable selves and counterparts. I'm pretty sure I encountered a few counterparts and a few of probable selves in dreams at that time. I was trying to, and was giving myself pre sleep directions to do so.

I know one of my challenges in this existence is money. I've never been horrendously dirt poor, I've also never had an easy time of it with money either.

One of my counterparts is a wealthy self made Asian. He found me to be as incomprehensible as I found him. This was a few years back. I think we both had a slight realization of what we were to each other.

I think counterparts are intimately involved in whatever challenges the entity is working on, is a different aspect of the situation. As where probable selves are emotional offshoots.

I'm also pretty sure at this point that money problems have little to do with money itself. It has more to do with how you live, your ability to interact with other's, and your ability to use whatever advantages are available to you in the society you live in.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

What a great topic Deb; thanks for starting this.


I think perhaps, an important point here in Seth's words is the emotional connection, "If you wanted to be a, ..."


When I was in second grade, I discovered dinosaurs and I was always fascinated by them. From then, up until maybe the 7th or 8th grade, I wanted to be an archaeologist.

I suspect that there's a jbseth out there somewhere in some probable reality "digging" dinosaur bones (pun intended) 


At the same time, I've always loved anything to do with flying. When I went into the Air Force, right after high school, I went in with the full intention of becoming a pilot. As things worked out, this didn't happen, but I've always, been interested, even to this day, in becoming a pilot. I know I could have created this for myself, but I'm also happy with the things that I did create in place of this.

I suspect that there's a jbseth out there somewhere in some probable reality who's flying commercial aircraft for a living.


When I was in high school, I took a combined, Ecology / Marine Biology course.  I've always loved the ocean, and everything about it. Growing up, you couldn't get me away from the TV if there was a Jacques Cousteau show on.

I also suspect that there's a jbseth out there somewhere in some probable reality who's doing something having to do with Marine Biology or Oceanography.


Finally, in addition to all of this, I also suspect that there may be a jbseth out there somewhere in some probable reality who's either doing something in astronomy or working for NASA in some way.


-jbseth

[Sena]

Not too long after I read Seth Speaks a long time ago, I encountered what I believe to be a probable self in a dream state. She was nearly identical to me except she was living how I really wanted too, basically in a mountain lodge. She was as surprised at me as I was at her. It was a very brief glimpse.

T.M., thanks for sharing this with us. I have had an experience of seeing in dreams a woman for whom I have great respect and affection (I am male). She now lives in a different country and I have not physically met her for 20 years. I tend to interpret this in Jungian terms, according to which the dream figure I see may be my "anima":

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

I suspect that Seth's teaching on probable selves and Jung on anima/animus could be the same phenomenon looked at from different angles.

To explain Jung's anima in simple terms, the anima for a man is his feminine aspect which is usually unconscious but may become conscious in a dream or in psychoanalysis. The animus is the masculine aspect of a female individual.

[T.M.]

Hi Sena,

That could well be. I hadn't thought of it like that. Thank you! 

[Deb]

Not too long after I read Seth Speaks a long time ago, I encountered what I believe to be a probable self in a dream state.

What a cool experience! The closest I've come to something like that was in a lucid dream where I looked for a mirror to look at myself (preplanned experiment). My reflection was of a woman, not myself. Then it morphed into someone else, and someone else, over and over. It scared me and I woke up, but when awake I felt it was showing me my various incarnations.

I think perhaps, an important point here in Seth's words is the emotional connection, "If you wanted to be a, ..."

Yes, that's a clue to our probable selves. I tend to get bogged down in words, maybe too many years working with lawyers, but my interpretations of the terms  are:

Probable selves: When I make a personal decision and there is more than one option, I continue on living my choice while the other options are probable versions of myself/my choice and go on with "their" own lives. They are versions of who I currently am, in this existence.

Incarnations: versions of myself that appear to live in different time periods, places on Earth, circumstances and genders.

Counterparts: This came to me with a little help from Michael Newton's Journey of Souls. Newton talked about hypnotically regressing an American patient and the man described his counterpart, a woman living in Canada. He had no awareness of her unless he was hypnotized. The explanation was that a more advanced entity can project itself into our reality in more than one existence during a specific time period in order to speed up progression. So counterparts are sort of like twins or triplets living in the same time period but can be living in different countries, conditions and genders. We can potentially meet our counterparts in the physical existence. I can only imagine the magic in that.

So when I was a kid, I wanted to be a veterinarian, then a farmer, and for all of my life I've yearned to be an artist. So there are probable selves of me doing those things, while in this life my work has been very different than those yet in my personal life I gravitate towards animals, gardening and creating art in different ways. There are times I get strong urges to paint and don't follow through, and I wonder if this is some sort of bleed-through impulse from a probable self. Once I was painting and got very frustrated. I was not happy with the way it was turning out. I got angry enough that I just let go of caring how the painting would turn out and started quickly and loosely stabbing paint onto canvas. It turned out to be one of my better paintings and I have to wonder if one of my other selves, probable or incarnation, stepped in when I let go.

I also suspect that there may be a jbseth out there somewhere in some probable reality who's either doing something in astronomy or working for NASA in some way.

It's fun to think about, isn't it?

I have had an experience of seeing in dreams a woman for whom I have great respect and affection (I am male). She now lives in a different country and I have not physically met her for 20 years.

So this sounds like you've actually physically met this woman. What was that like? I met someone about 3 years ago that I felt like I'd known forever, which was a really surreal feeling—comforting and familiar while realizing this person was really a stranger. Our experiences and backgrounds in this lifetime could be considered polar opposites, but yet there were a lot of coincidences.

I've also had some fleeting glimpses in either dreams or during meditation of possible incarnations. Once, a young woman working in a garden somewhere in Holland, another a pioneer woman heading west across the US, another an old Asian (Japanese?) man living in a house built on some sort of stilted platform, along with 3 generations of family members. The walls between rooms were made of rice paper and privacy was a courtesy of intentionally and politely ignoring others' behaviors.

[jbseth]

I suspect that Seth's teaching on probable selves and Jung on anima/animus could be the same phenomenon looked at from different angles.

Hi Sena,

I don't know about that, but I do know that Seth said quite a bit about both anima and animus, in "Seth Speaks, Ch 13, Sessions 555, 556 and 557. He also had a lot to say about the male and female characteristics in "The Nature of the Psyche", Chapter 4, Session 765.

In Session 765, Seth said:

The psyche is not male or female. In your system of beliefs, however, it is often identified as feminine, along with the artistic productions that emerge from its creativity. In that context, the day hours and waking consciousness are thought of as masculine, along with the sun — while the nighttime, the moon, and the dreaming consciousness are considered feminine or passive. In the same manner, aggression is usually understood to be violent assertive action, male-oriented, while female elements are identified in terms of the nurturing principle.

Physically speaking, you would have no males or females unless first you had individuals. You are each individuals first of all, then. After this, you are individuals of a specific sex, biologically speaking. The particular kind of focus that you have is responsible for the great significance you place upon male and female. Your hand and your foot have different functions. If you wanted to focus upon the differences in their behavior, you could build an entire culture based upon their diverse capabilities, functions and characteristics. Hands and feet are obviously equipment belonging to both sexes, however. Still, on another level the analogy is quite valid.


-jbseth

[Sena]

I don't know about that, but I do know that Seth said quite a bit about both anima and animus, in "Seth Speaks, Ch 13, Sessions 555, 556 and 557.

jbseth, that is interesting. I must have skipped that chapter in Seth Speaks:

"This personification of femaleness in the male is the true meaning of what Jung called the "anima." The anima in the male is, therefore, the psychic memory and identification of all the previous female existences in which the inner self has been involved. It contains within it the knowledge of the present male's past female histories, and the intuitive understanding of all the female qualities with which the personality is innately endowed. The anima, therefore, is an important safeguard, preventing the male from over-identifying with whatever cultural male characteristics have been imposed upon him through present background, environment, and education. The anima serves not only as a personal but as a mass-civilizing influence, mellowing strongly aggressive tendencies and serving also as a bridge both in communicating with women in a family relationship, and in communication also as it is applied through the arts and verbalization. The male will often dream of himself, therefore, as a female." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: http://amzn.eu/hVZekyU

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

On a couple of occasions during my life I have had a dream where I was a female.
In one of these specific dreams, I recall a short clip of the dream where I was a woman, in a bathtub, taking a bubble bath and talking to someone else, another woman I think.  This kind of through me off at first, as I didn't initially realize, that "I" was actually the woman in the tub.

In this dream, it felt like the timeframe was more contemporary, like mid to late 20th century. Since I was born in 1954 and I'm a male, I don't think that this woman was a reincarnational self of mine. I suspect that she may have been either a counterpart, or perhaps a probable self.

This brings up an interesting question, do we have probable selves that are members of the opposite sex? My intuition tells me yes, but I'm not sure what, if anything, Seth said about this.

-jbseth

[LarryH]

Seth says that we can choose to reincarnate in the past relative to our "last" incarnation, and that we can also have multiple incarnations that overlap in time. From Seth's perspective, all the incarnations are happening "at the same time". Thus, there is no contradiction. There is also no reason that such simultaneous incarnations require the entity to be "advanced". The Oversoul 7 books utilize the idea of incarnations being out of order relative to our "time". When I hear people argue that there is no such thing as reincarnation because of our current 7.5 billion humans not having enough of a past in human history to allow for such a thing, the idea of simultaneous incarnations answers that argument handily.

[jbseth]

Hi LarryH,

That's right, in the Oversoul Seven books, Lydia, who lives in the 20th Century, dies and reincarnates as  the daughter of Joseph and Bianca, who lived in the 17th Century.

-jbseth

[Deb]

This brings up an interesting question, do we have probable selves that are members of the opposite sex? My intuition tells me yes, but I'm not sure what, if anything, Seth said about this.

My understanding of probable selves is that they are all carbon copies of the me I am right now, they spring to life whenever I have to make a life decision. I go on my way, the probable selves go on theirs living the probable choices I did not choose. So according to my understanding, the only time one of my probable selves can be a different gender is if at some point I have to decide whether or not I'd want gender reassignment surgery. If I decide not to, then I go on my way as I am. But there's a probable me who decides to go through with the surgery. But I should probably research that.

Oh and I remember one dream where I was male. Could be that animus-anima thing in operation, as your bath dream could have been as well.

There is also no reason that such simultaneous incarnations require the entity to be "advanced".

Well, that was from the Michael Newton book, not Seth. I should do more quote gathering from the Seth books on counterparts to get a better understanding of what they are, what sets them apart from incarnations. Or maybe it's just the fact that they are living the same time period. Sort of like the delineation with families—siblings being born during at times as opposed to twins. I know that's an oversimplification. And then, simultaneous time takes the "time" out of everything. I think simultaneous time is the hardest concept for me to grasp. I understand it theoretically, but not on a gut level.

[Eduard]

My explanation of probable selves: if a single atom shifts a bit in position then you will have a probable self (which will be then the base for other ramifications) - and that's within quotes because it's rational but the whole purpose is experiential. (a self that has just one atom changed is pretty similar with current self so to be more significant this case would make more sense: you prepare for college, you can either do computer science, lawyer, dr... you kind of explore all those areas with probable selves).

About time: our body lives in space time reality and there are certain rules for it. Time exists because we perceive events in a sequential matter. You kind of select what you are looking at. But a Greater being outside time and space, would see the whole picture and would not experience time.

[Deb]

My explanation of probable selves: if a single atom shifts a bit in position then you will have a probable self (which will be then the base for other ramifications) - and that's within quotes because it's rational but the whole purpose is experiential. (a self that has just one atom changed is pretty similar with current self so to be more significant this case would make more sense: you prepare for college, you can either do computer science, lawyer, dr... you kind of explore all those areas with probable selves).

"A single atom," that's pretty profound, I've never thought about it that way but it does make sense. I tend to think of the "whole picture" of a person making a decision that leads them off on a new probable path, but I guess that's oversimplified. Thanks for giving me a new perspective. This expands my vision of the multiverse exponentially.

By the way, welcome to the forum. You seem very familiar with the Seth concepts. Welcome on board!

[Eduard]

Thank you Deb.

I have a question.

My idea about the whole thing is that all the variations, alternatives are already created. With our consciousness, we just "choose" what to bring to life in this reality (However you can't choose until you get rid of your strong belief systems; also you can't choose with your physical intention but with your resonance frequency that propels or brings in the "desired reality")

Seth speaks about probable selves. Are these selves as real as we are, having a dense body? Or maybe that are just some dream-like characters?

[Deb]

My idea about the whole thing is that all the variations, alternatives are already created. With our consciousness we just choose what to bring to life in this reality.

Seth speaks about probably selves. Are this selves as real as we are, having a dense body? Or maybe that are just some dream like characters?

I suppose the all probabilities already existing has to do with simultaneous time.

Seth talks a lot about probable selves/realities in Unknown Reality 1 and there's a lot of information to be found in the search engine http://www.findingseth.com.

I see all probable selves in our physical system as having a physical body in their probable realities.The York Beach couple Jane and Rob experienced... appeared real enough until they disappeared. But Seth says we also exist in nonphysical systems, which would mean no physical bodies in those cases.

Here are some cool quotes from the search engine:

"(To Sue.) The other room exists simultaneously, as this room now exists, and your two friends are as closely connected as our Ruburt and Joseph. [...] These are not fine fantasies, they are realities of your existence and each of you have realities in probable existences of which you are unaware. [...]"
—TECS3 ESP Class Session, January 26, 1971

"In some adventures you do visit other probable realities in which you have a body structure quite as real as "your own.""
—UR1 Section 1: Session 685 February 25, 1974

"There are many probable systems of reality, therefore, in which physical data predominates, but such physical probabilities represent but one small portion. Each of you also exist in nonphysical systems,"
—SS Chapter 14: Session 560, November 23, 1970

[Eduard]

Thank you for your answer and the search engine link.

I also found

"From infinite probable acts, comma, only one can be physically experienced as a rule, period."
—NoPR Chapter 20: Session 669, June 11, 1973

"In your terms, the world is intensely different from one moment to another, with each smallest portion of consciousness choosing its reality from a field of infinite probabilities. Immense calculations, far beyond your conscious decisions as you think of them, are possible only because of the unutterable freedom that resides within minute worlds inside your skull — patterns of interrelationships, counterparts so cunningly woven that each is unique, freewheeling, and involved in an infinite cooperative venture so powerful that the atoms stay in certain forms, and the same stars shine in the sky."
—UR2 Section 6: Session 733 January 27, 1975

"When people think in terms of one self, they of course identify with one body. [...] The body is at any given moment, however, a mass conglomeration of energy formed from that rich bank of probable activity."
—UR1 Section 1: Session 681 February 11, 1974

"Since your physical time operates as it does, the physical organism does not have time within its own framework to experience any more than one probable event. [...] It goes without saying, again, that we are simplifying matters considerably, since each physical event is actually a gestalt of many small events."
—TES5 Session 227 January 26, 1966

So what I get from these is that:
1. we have a physical world
2. and we have probabilities world (the bank of creativity)
3. and we have the conscious self

The conscious self rides the sea waves of creativity (or probabilities) for materialization in physical world (by his free will - if awaken to it)

[that more or less means we are not Inventing shit; all is there but the whole act of actualizing in physical terms is our undenied birth right; that is a whole new dimension of the expression "We Are Creators"]

[Eduard]

I see all probable selves in our physical system as having a physical body in their probable realities.The York Beach couple Jane and Rob experienced... appeared real enough until they disappeared. But Seth says we also exist in nonphysical systems, which would mean no physical bodies in those cases.

I think they appear real because their collective hyper perception of alternate reality (or Jane and Rob jumped in that alternate reality, either way)
Even in the dream space, you perceive a body and real world, but that is not physical (but you believe it is)

[inavalan]

Even in the dream space, you perceive a body and real world, but that is not physical (but you believe it is)

I agree. But why would you think that the physical is a "real world", and not just a similarly made up one from our thoughts, as that in your dream?

[Eduard]

It is not "the real world"- it is just one of many (but being in it seem so real).
The physical world is made by consciousness (which eventually forms matter), it has different blueprints and laws, and it is a bit denser than the Dreamworld.
IMO

[Deb]

I agree. But why would you think that the physical is a "real world", and not just a similarly made up one from our thoughts, as that in your dream?

That's a great point. I've sometimes thought "we" are our oversoul dreaming. I take it for granted that I have a body when I'm dreaming, have done some taste, smell, touch, seeing experiments during lucid dreams. So when dreaming I also appear to have my five senses.

Seth said when we transition to the non-physical, we have a spirit body of sorts:

"However, after leaving the physical body, you will immediately find yourself in another. This is the same kind of form in which you travel in out-of-body projections, and again let me remind my readers that each of them leaves the body for some time each night during sleep."
—SS Chapter 9: Session 537, June 24, 1970

But even here in the physical, he says the body only "appears permanent" :

"the units of consciousness, being independent of space and time, form your cellular structure, and that structure deals in a most basic manner with the nature of probabilities. Although the body appears permanent and in existence from one moment to the next, basically it constantly rises out of the bed of probabilities, hovering at your now-point of perception and experience, and its apparent stability is dependent upon the knowledge of "future" probabilities as well as "past" ones."
—UR1 Section 1: Session 684 February 20, 1974

Also, we are constantly creating our bodies, moment to moment. He had a LOT of interesting comments about the dream body:

https://findingseth.com/q/'dream+body'/

[T.M.]

Hi All,

If somehow a person died and didn't realize that, wouldn't they likely create things 'just as before'. Wouldn't they create physical reality just as they've always done before?

Now what would happen if somehow a whole society somehow died. Wouldn't their collective hallucinations be even more persistent than that of one individual?

If no one could get through to them, and tell them of their true condition, do you think they would merrily go on with life just as they imagine it would be? Even to the point of growing old and dying?

Would this alleged reality start to show breaks in other ways, like maybe the Mandela effect?,  where there's no solid basis for history?  Whole groups remembering things one way, other groups remembering something else?

Sometimes I wonder if the physical system, and the physical body throws off so much energy multiple people's could inhabit it. Like a radio station, each on its own frequency, unaware of the other personalities on the other frequencies.

[Deb]

I think Seth kind of addressed that in SS, such as the example of the Arab (?) where the guides staged a showdown between Allah and Jesus in order to snap the man out of his belief dilemma. It also sounds like there are people who die and don't realize it, or people who die but are so attached to their life here they don't want to leave. There are supposed to be guides to gently acclimate those souls to their new form. And souls who have died that don't want to reincarnate or doing anything for a while and will wallow in their Earth life via constructs they create, and can live over parts of their history, changing things if they want, trying out different outcomes.

So many good questions! Here's one more: Do you suppose your questions have opened up new probabilities where all of those take place?

Your radio station analogy is how I view things too, like probable selves and multiverses, in that we are not separated by space as  we know it, but rather we are on different frequencies. If we can change our own frequency from time to time, just imagine what we would "see." In reading this The Super Natural book right now, I think that's why a lot of paranormal events are reported: ghost sights, things disappearing and reappearing, little blue men (that was new to me), UFOs and aliens, more. I'm starting to see them as bleed-throughs due to some temporary electrical change, a cross-over between frequencies. A glitch in the Matrix!

I just searched for "bleed-through" and came up with 39 hits! I'll add the link so I can read them later when I have more time.  https://findingseth.com/q/bleed-through/

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Deb,

I do sometimes wonder if something did happen to the world and All the people years ago, and we are dead. We just don't collectively realise it yet. I can't explain what that something is. Other than alluding to the matrix and somehow it got reset.
Though I look at the movie as more of a metaphor than actual. Other the other hand, maybe it is literal.

I still have a hard time wrapping my head around Seth's teachings on probabilities. I get the basic idea, the complete scope of its possibilities make my brain melt!

You ask a good question. I've often asked myself why would any of us be doing what we are if we did all die/reset. Maybe it's to open paths of acceptance? Somehow make it okay?

I think of how Seth said that after death we can reply an event until we change it to an outcome we are happy with.

I do wonder at times what the Mandela effect is really all about. Is it time line bleed throughs? Is it probable realities merging?
Or does it represent the beginnings of our species abilities to see the bigger picture of existence?

I remember searching Seth's material on U.F.O's. He's really quite uncomital on definitions. That was before I had access to the unpublished materials. Which may contain more info, I haven't read them all either, though.

The thing that stuck out in my mind the most was his saying roughly, more amazing than wether or not such exists, is the particular persons ability to experience such phenomenon!

[inavalan]

I guess, many such questions arise from our difficulty of understanding "simultaneous time".

From non-physical (which is formless) you can project (focus your awareness) anywhere into the physical space and time. Once you (a single personality of your multi-personality entity) projected, you joined this reality with all its laws and rules observed by all the other participants (co-creators, personalities).

"Simultaneous" is a little bit of misnomer ... The idea is that any change that happens in any point of the timeline, instantaneously propagates through the whole timeline, and everybody experiences the new reality with no conscious recollection of any change (this doesn't mean that your subconscious is also unaware of this).

There are parallel universes in the sense that our dreams and thoughts create dream selves and probable selves that function inside their "thinned down" universes, for the duration of their scope, but that doesn't mean that there are other universes in the sense that there are "other yous" that live independent lives. There aren't. There is only one conscious you. When you die, your personality joins your multi-personality entity.

You can't meet your future self, as you can't meet your inner-self, nor your dream selves, nor probable selves, but you can project (your awareness) into a probable future self to check the effect of choices you might want to make now.

You can't foresee the future. But you can create it the way you want it to be (you can't foresee the lottery numbers, but you can create a future in which you are a lottery winner).

For that matter you aren't aware that your past (as well as humanity's past) changes all the time.

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Inavalan, Thanks!!  The part of parallel realities also just gives me a headache. I like your explanation. That makes much sense to me.

I'm trying that with the lotto too. Not trying to predict and pick future winning numbers. Just affirm my ticket has the winning numbers. Still no luck so far on that front, lol.

[Eduard]

If somehow a person died and didn't realize that, wouldn't they likely create things 'just as before'. Wouldn't they create physical reality just as they've always done before?

If they die without knowing they will hang on around here and around people they knew (in a background density) - sometimes if the person they know is kind of open they will enter their physical body
But depending on their level of consciousness they can ascend and meet the Creator (desired outcome).
Based on their beliefs also they might end up in a space called Heaven or Hell (These places exists and are created by us)
Anything is possible...

Our consciousness (of humans) cannot die. If we were to be wiped out physically, after a period I am sure we will pop back again in this world.

Anyway, this is a view, make your own view, feel it

[jbseth]

Hi All,

I find what Seth had to say about probable realities in UR1, session 680 and 681, to be very evocative.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Seth gives us his comments on many of the topics being discussed here, in the book, "Seth Speaks".  For me, this is one of the reasons that I like this Seth book the best. It's sort of like an encyclopedia of many of Seth's concepts.

If you're interested, you can find information on these topics in the index of this book, under the following headings.

- Ghosts

- Death, awareness after.

- Probable, (many subtitles)

- Presents, multiple


jbseth.

[Deb]

The thing that stuck out in my mind the most was his saying roughly, more amazing than wether or not such exists, is the particular persons ability to experience such phenomenon!

Yes, that struck me as well and says a lot of how focused we are in this reality—and are meant to be, otherwise it wouldn't work. I've had more than a few paranormal experiences, have tried not to label them other than that they were unusual and unexplainable. Actually, similar to our Synchronicities topic, I should probably start one for Personal Paranormal Experiences. It would be fun and interesting.

You can't meet your future self, as you can't meet your inner-self, nor your dream selves, nor probable selves, but you can project (your awareness) into a probable future self to check the effect of choices you might want to make now.

Inavalan that entire post was great, you really have an understanding of the Seth teachings and are able to run with them. Thanks.

I've started doing something since I first read the Seth books. I only do it when I remember to, but I try to focus on either a past or future probable self and mentally send myself a message. I don't remember getting any of these messages specifically in my past, but now that I think about it, it probably would have come to me as that inner voice. Interesting to contemplate.

For me, this is one of the reasons that I like this Seth book the best. It's sort of like an encyclopedia of many of Seth's concepts.

It's a great Seth book, I've read it twice in its entirety plus focused on specific parts when I took Rick Stack's intensive class—twice. But then when I read another book, suddenly it's my favorite. It's like a mother trying to decide which child is her favorite (I know, it does happen, I've seen it). Seth Speaks, Nature of Personal Reality and Mass Events are my all-time favorites though, they contain all the average person needs to know. The rest are icing on the cake. And a delicious icing they are!

I gave Seth Speaks to a friend for Christmas. I'd been telling her about Seth/Jane for years. She's 75 and pretty open-minded, would ask me questions and appeared to be interested. I gave her the book saying she doesn't need to read it, there would be no test in the end. But she did start the book and had some questions for me, which was encouraging.

[inavalan]

Inavalan that entire post was great, you really have an understanding of the Seth teachings and are able to run with them. Thanks.

I've started doing something since I first read the Seth books. I only do it when I remember to, but I try to focus on either a past or future probable self and mentally send myself a message. I don't remember getting any of these messages specifically in my past, but now that I think about it, it probably would have come to me as that inner voice. Interesting to contemplate.

Thanks 

You might want to try getting in direct contact with your subconscious, nicely giving it instructions, asking it for help creating your reality as you wish it. Subconscious is extremely powerful, ready to help, and finds most pleasure in creative activities.

[inavalan]

This is interesting:

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

[Deb]

Sorry for the delay, sometimes I don't get notices of posts and I finally figured out the problem today. For some odd reason my mail program was throwing SOME posts from this forum into a Spam folder, while the majority go to my Forum folder. And the Spam folder is not visible until I reboot my computer, which I rarely do. There must have been a power outage during the night, my computer was off this morning. I started it up and viola, there were a bunch of notices from the forum in Spam. So here I am...

You might want to try getting in direct contact with your subconscious, nicely giving it instructions, asking it for help creating your reality as you wish it.

I do, quite often. And when I get mental answers, I thank me/my subc/inner self. I don't give instructions though, but focus more on the end result I want to achieve.

The past exists as a series of electromagnetic connections, held in the physical brain on the one hand, but it also consists of the same sort of realities retained in the nonphysical mind. These electromagnetic connections can be changed. The present exists as a series of electromagnetic connections in both the brain and the mind, and this is the only reality which you are justified in giving to your present.
...

The connections therefore can be changed at any time, and such changes are far from uncommon. They happen spontaneously on a subconscious basis a good deal of the time. The past was seldom what you remember it to be, for you have already rearranged it from the instant of any given occurrence.

Interesting quote from TES05. Seth talks in a lot of different places about how the past, present and future are not static or carved in stone, but this session has the most information in one place as far as I know. It makes me wonder why so much good information was left out of the core books. I suppose they (Jane/Rob) felt they had to keep the books more manageable in information and size for the general public, no doubt coached by their publishers.

I thought I'd throw this into the mix of Probable Selves:

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

—NoME Chapter 4: Session 826, March 8, 1978

[inavalan]

 I found the following paragraph very informative, for the advice it gives, also intriguing, for the implications.

"It goes without saying then that probable selves exist in your "future" as well as your past. It is very poor policy to dwell negatively on unpleasant aspects of the past that you know, because some portions of the probable self may still be involved in that past. The concentration can allow greater bleed-through and adverse identification, because that part will be one background that you have in common with any probable selves who sprang from that particular source.

(10:12.) To dwell upon the possibility of illness or disaster is equally poor policy, for you set up negative webs of probabilities that need not occur. You can theoretically alter your own past as you have known it, for time is no more something divorced from you than probabilities are.

The past existed in multitudinous ways. You only experienced one probable past. By changing this past in your mind, now, in your present, you can change not only its nature but its effect, and not only upon yourself but upon others.

Pretend a particular event happened that greatly disturbed you. In your mind imagine it not simply wiped out, but replaced by another event of more beneficial nature. Now this must be done with great vividness and emotional validity, and many times. It is not a self-deception. The event that you choose will automatically be a probable event, which did in fact happen, though it is not the event you chose to perceive in your given probable past.

(10:24.) Telepathically, if the process is done correctly, your idea will also affect any people who were connected with the original event, though they can choose to reject as well as accept your version."

—SS Chapter 16: Session 566, February 15, 1971

[Sena]

To dwell upon the possibility of illness or disaster is equally poor policy, for you set up negative webs of probabilities that need not occur. You can theoretically alter your own past as you have known it, for time is no more something divorced from you than probabilities are.

inavalan, thanks for reminding us of this important Seth advice.

[inavalan]

"You must understand that each mental act is a reality for which you are responsible. That is what you are in this particular system of reality for."

"We go back to our fundamentals: You create reality through your feelings, thoughts, and mental actions. Some of these are physically materialized, others are actualized in probable systems. You are presented with an endless series of choices, it seems, at any point, some more or less favorable than others.

You must understand that each mental act is a reality for which you are responsible. That is what you are in this particular system of reality for. As long as you believe in a devil, for example, you will create one that is real enough for you, and for the others who continue to create him.

(9:35.) Because of the energy he is given by others, he will have a certain consciousness of his own, but such a mock devil has no power or reality to those who do not believe in his existence, and who do not give him energy through their belief. He is, in other words, a superlative hallucination As mentioned earlier, those who believe in a hell and assign themselves to it through their belief can indeed experience one, but certainly in nothing like eternal terms. No soul is forever ignorant."

—SS Chapter 17: Session 568, February 22, 1971

[Deb]

Great quotes inavalan, these are very clear reminders that we have a responsibility to pay attention to our thoughts, not only in the present, but also how we think about the past and future. I don't think we normally realize how much we can and do affect all aspects of our lives. Important information that deserves serious consideration. Thank you!