Changing the past: a story

[Deb]

I thought this was a nice story on Facebook from Lynda Dahl. Well written, enjoyable, and she's always so good at giving clear examples that fit in with and explain Seth's teachings.

From My Perspective...
Changing Trauma to Drama
......................................

In the forties, tuberculosis was still very much a dreaded killer disease. By 1950, at the tail end of my second grade of grammar school, my father was released from a TB sanatorium af­ter having spent six years there, on and off, mostly on, and losing a lung and many ribs to the surgeon's efforts to save him. My mother col­lected my three sisters and me from various temporary housing around the country where we'd spent the better part of five years while she had worked herself to desperation trying to support four small children and a very sick husband.

When Dad was released from the sanatorium, my mother, a registered nurse, brought us together in a new town where she could be within walk­ing distance of her job at a local hospital. Our new home was a tiny one-and-a-half bedroom apartment over a dilapidated garage whose rickety entrance staircased off a back alley. The problem arose for me, a sensitive, shy seven-year-old, in the fact that the dilapidated garage was on the back grounds of a splendid house on a street of elegant homes lining the Detroit River, some of which boasted maids or housekeepers. The town seemed overflowing with abundance, its lovely churches on shady streets and children with shiny patent leather shoes and ironed clothing in stark contrast to what I knew of the world.

As long as my new school friends didn't know the condi­tion of our housing, I felt safe. But one day when I was alone in the apartment, two classmates came for an unexpected visit. My shock was traumatic. When I heard their feet on the squeaky stair­case and their childish voices, I dropped behind a chair in the liv­ing room, hidden from the view of the open door. My friends knocked and called my name. I hyperventilated. As they turned to descend into the alley, they talked about our dump of a home, using language only kids can conjure up.

My life changed in that moment. I entered a probability that verified assumptions I held about myself that had no validity whatsoever. I heaped the old beliefs with new ones about my self-worth, my place in life and my apart­ness, that helped shape my reality for years to come. I didn't see them as beliefs, I saw them as truths. I battled with those truths until recently, winning some skirmishes, losing others. I knew when I started reading the Seth material that I had to address my limiting beliefs once and for all, because they placed a lid on my potential just as tightly as the screwed-down top of a Bell jar.

Seth gave me knowledge. He told me there are many probabilities surrounding each event I ever experi­ence, and any could have been chosen by me for actualization that day. I simply aligned with the one I did based on my beliefs and desires of the moment. Looked at neutrally, as all events could be, it was simply the expression of my thoughts, attitudes and feelings of the time. Other players came into my script, acting out their parts with so much convic­tion that even I believed them—and I'm the one who not only wrote them into my play, but directed the scene and became the audience who cried at curtain fall.

But, according to Seth, our directorship is open-ended, meaning we can rethink a scene whenever we choose to, and alter its signif­icance dramatically. We can take a stumbling block to our happi­ness or fulfillment and make it the growth path to our fu­ture. Seth says, "The fact remains that there are probable past events that 'can still happen' within your personal previous experience. A new event can literally be born in the past—now.... A new belief in the pre­sent can cause changes in the past.... When you alter your be­liefs today you also repro­gram your past." At another point he says, "To rid yourself of an­noying restric­tions then...you repattern your past from the pre­sent."

So, here's what I did, and it may have been the most im­portant process of my life. In an altered state of consciousness, or Psy-Time, I re-created the scene and played out the event just as it had occurred, except I inserted today's self into the picture. Today's "me" watched from across the room as strong emotion coursed through my seven-year-old self. Then, after the other children had de­parted, I sat on the couch and waited for my younger self to be­come aware of me. Her reaction when she noticed me was shy­ness, but when I beckoned her to the couch, she joined me.

Then we had a heart-to-heart talk. She listened intently while I told her that her beliefs, beliefs she just may have brought into this life with her, shaped that event. And I told her those be­liefs didn't particularly hold any power over her; it was only her belief in their power that did. I told her she was quite capable of altering that event by consciously choosing another prob­ability to experience.

Then I told her I was her future self, and I talked about some of the more special things we'd accomplished in our life, and that we had two fine children and a loving mate and a nice home. She smiled. She was starting to grasp that life didn't end with that lat­est painful event, that it continued and indeed offered some choice morsels of love, security and happiness.

Then we laid a plan. She would create an instant replay of that event, but this time the ending would change—because she would change. She'd still live off the alley over a garage, but she'd be proud of it. She'd be proud of what her parents had been able to accomplish given their circumstances. She'd be pleased that they had moved her into a town where she could learn so much, such as how prosperous people acted and dressed and talked, and how they seemed to assume they had a right to the good things in life. And she would assume she had those same rights, be­cause certainly she did.

So, here come the kids trooping up the creaky stairs once again. She hears them and, with anticipation in her step, reaches the door at the same time as they do. She greets them happily and asks them to come in. Her new friends from school thought enough of her to come for a visit, and she's thrilled. Her home is not an issue with them because it isn't with her. They talk awhile, and then the children head home, glad to have spent time with the new girl in town.

As soon as they leave, she and I whoop for joy. We've done it! We've changed the past by changing probabilities by changing our beliefs. And now the frosting on the cake: in walks our future self. She's laughing and full of congratulations. We all sit down and talk. She tells us what's happening in her life, about her home and career, about her happiness and how our chang­ing made it all possible. We, her past selves, sit there, excited with the picture she paints of our future, because it is indeed wonderful.

I did this Psy-Time exercise over a period of a few weeks. It was never the same in that it took on its own character each time, but the result was al­ways a feeling of freedom from limiting beliefs and a wide-open future just waiting to be experienced.

How do I know I altered the past? At first I wasn't sure. Not that it mat­tered, particularly, because I sensed movement and change within myself. But then during a seminar Stan and I were conducting, some­one asked me that question. Almost instantly I had my an­swer, because the new ending to the event immediately flashed into my mind, remembered before the original one. My first reaction to the question was one of ease with the outcome. And then I knew that, in my field of probabilities, I had given it more strength, more in­tensity than the original ending. The other one was still there, but now it was merely dress rehearsal to the grand opening night.

Seth says, in this synthesis of quotes: "Because events do not exist in the concrete, done-and-finished versions about which you have been taught, then memory must also be a different story. You must remember the creativity and the open-ended na­ture of events .... A root goes out in all directions. Events do also. But the roots of events go through your past, present, and fu­ture.... Simultaneously, each of your past and future selves dwells in their own way now...."
..................................

From my book Ten Thousand Whispers: A Guide to Conscious Creation, Chapter 8 – Time Sculpting

[inavalan]

I guess this is Lynda's understanding of those concepts ... I don't think so. If she changed the past, she wouldn't know now the original happenings.

The past changes all the time without our knowing, and propagates instantaneously (aka "simultaneous time").

There is "age regression therapy" where you identify past traumas, and once you do it, their psychological consequences diminish or go away.

There is also "deep trance identification" in which you can identify with a past, present or future personality (you or somebody else) to borrow from their personality and skills.

Surely, one can imagine whatever they want, but you can't talk to a past or future self, because those are different focuses of your self, not different personalities. There is what is called "parts therapy", where you talk to parts of your self (like your subconscious), but not to your outer-self (ego) from a different time, or your probable self.

Anyway, at least this is my take on Lynda's story. There are so many interpretations, and so many people believe they understand better ... 

"(10:55.) The ideas presented in this book should allow many readers to expand their perceptions and consciousness in ways they may not have believed possible. The book itself is written in such a way that all those ready to learn will benefit. There is meaning not only in the written words themselves, but connections existing between them that do not appear, and that will have meanings to various levels of the personality.

(Jane, in trance, tried to light a book match several times, but it was evidently too damp. She finally had to put her new cigarette aside.)

The integrity of any intuitive information depends upon the inner integrity of the person who receives it. Expansion of consciousness, therefore, requires honest self appraisal, an awareness of one's own beliefs and prejudices. (Long pause at 11:01.) It brings a gift and a responsibility. All who wish to look within themselves, to find their own answers, to encounter their own "appointment with the universe," should therefore become well acquainted with the intimate workings of their own personality."

—SS Appendix: Session 596, September 27, 1971

[LarryH]

I guess this is Lynda's understanding of those concepts ... I don't think so. If she changed the past, she wouldn't know now the original happenings.

I have two possible interpretations of Lynda's experience:
1) She took her memory of a real experience and replaced it with an imaginal experience, which altered the effect of the real experience "as if" the imaginal experience was the real one. Or...
2) She literally replaced the past, which transformed the initial past real experience into an imaginal experience that is retained in memory, but less potent than before it was replaced.

[Deb]

This is Lynda's understanding of those concepts ... I don't think so. If she changed the past, she wouldn't know now the original happenings.

That's always been my thought when people bring up changing the past. Seth says we do it all the time, but how would we know?

Do you suppose we actually change the past, or just switch tracks to a different probability at the point a decision was made? If that's the case, we'd have to cooperatively switch roles with the probable self that chose the path we now want. Unless we create a new probability in the process.

I really enjoyed Lynda's story anyway, she seems like such a loving person. I think it was more a case of her changing a belief (her housing was substandard/she was ashamed), there must be some relief in that. As an adult, I've looked back on events in my past and now see them totally differently than I did at the time, especially if strong emotions at the time of the event colored my judgment. Maybe some day Lynda will totally only recall the second scenario (Larry's
#2). The more we repeatedly talk about certain events from the past, the more engrained they become.

[inavalan]

This is Lynda's understanding of those concepts ... I don't think so. If she changed the past, she wouldn't know now the original happenings.

That's always been my thought when people bring up changing the past. Seth says we do it all the time, but how would we know?

Do you suppose we actually change the past, or just switch tracks to a different probability at the point a decision was made? If that's the case, we'd have to cooperatively switch roles with the probable self that chose the path we now want. Unless we create a new probability in the process.

I really enjoyed Lynda's story anyway, she seems like such a loving person. I think it was more a case of her changing a belief (her housing was substandard/she was ashamed), there must be some relief in that. As an adult, I've looked back on events in my past and now see them totally differently than I did at the time, especially if strong emotions at the time of the event colored my judgment. Maybe some day Lynda will totally only recall the second scenario (Larry's
#2). The more we repeatedly talk about certain events from the past, the more engrained they become.

This quote comes to mind:

"(Annie G.: "What about precognitive dreams?")

Some are entirely legitimate. Often, however, the suggestion involved in a dream brings about the event, so it seems when the dream becomes real that you have looked into a future that already existed. Instead you have formed the event, not realizing that it had its origins at the time you slept. The question cannot be answered simply for there are many ramifications, but from this instant of reality you form and change not only the future, but the past. In the operation of probabilities this has great significance, for this means that you change and affect all events, and that your books are a delightful fiction that tell you only your current ideas about the past."

—SS Appendix: ESP Class Session: Tuesday, January 5, 1971

I believe that we don't change the past and live to know it. 

What Lynda describes isn't changing the past. During her experience, her thoughts generated thought-forms at that experience's moment of the linear-time, with no effect over the past, but only the future.

If she had succeeded into changing the past, the life of the little girl would've been different, and the change would've propagated through probable futures. Lynda, if she were still alive (as we can't know where that change would've led), would remember just the changed behavior, and maybe wondered if it hadn't been better to not have had invited those girls inside.

The way I see it, when we incarnate we have the choice to join the "physical-reality game" anywhere-when in space-time coordinates, and whatever we do there, while exercising our free-will, instantaneously changes to a certain degree whatever follows in the linear-time, until our "effect" fades out.

One's most recent (in psychological-time terms) incarnation can be anywhere in their past, present, future (in linear-time terms).

This is my understanding of the simultaneous-time concept.

[Sena]

Deb/inavalan,
It seems to me that the following Seth quote is relevant to this discussion:

"The fact remains that there are probable past events that "can still happen" within your personal previous experience. A new event can literally be born in the past — "now." On a grand scale this rarely occurs in such a way that you perceive it — and you had better underline that whole last part. 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. 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. (Pause at 10:01.) A sudden or intense belief in health can indeed "reverse" a disease, but in a very practical way it is a reversal in terms of time." (from "The Nature of Personal Reality: Specific, Practical Techniques for Solving Everyday Problems and Enriching the Life You Know (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

From the Kindle edition: http://amzn.eu/0SBUebb

The key phrase here is that the change of past happens "on a neuronal level". This change is restricted to the person who is doing the thinking. Seth is NOT saying that a past event in outer physical reality can be altered. The practical significance of this teaching, I think, mainly involves one's physical and mental health. There may be certain of my thoughts and actions in my past which predispose me to a certain illness. If I change my thoughts and actions in the present, I may be able to prevent that illness developing.

[inavalan]

A new event can literally be born in the past — "now." On a grand scale this rarely occurs in such a way that you perceive it — and you had better underline that whole last part.

To me that's key for this discussion (as Seth said: "underline that last part"), and I understand it meaning that you may change the past, but you won't be aware of it: the "new past" is the only one you'll know.

The corollary: if you remember the "old past", then you didn't change it.

And, again, if you change something in the past, you have no control of the wider implications of that change, and overall the new present might not be better.

[LarryH]

I think it may be possible to change the past and still have a memory of the past that you just replaced. As I said before, that memory might become a past of the imagination rather than the actual past. To put it another way, or to use an analogy, consider the fact that two witnesses to, or participants in, an event can have very different memories of that event. That happened all the time between me and my former wife. Clearly, only one of us could be correct in our memories, possibly neither of us. One or both of us had a memory of a past that just wasn't so. So one can have a memory of a past that is inaccurate, and that could apply to a past that has been replaced by another, more preferred past. Alternatively, by focusing on a preferred alternate past, one may simply be giving more energy to that probability and taking away the energy or influence of the actual past. In this case, one is not actually changing the past, just changing its effect on the present. In either case, the "original" past need not be forgotten, just reduced in its influence.

[Deb]

To put it another way, or to use an analogy, consider the fact that two witnesses to, or participants in, an event can have very different memories of that event.

Yes, I experience that all the time. We interpret and remember things based on our filters (beliefs). And so are the memories false, or is it because we really DO make our own realities? And then there's the Mandala Effect...

In this case, one is not actually changing the past, just changing its effect on the present.

Good point. That kind of goes along with the quote Sena put up "A  new belief in the present, however, can cause changes in the past on a neuronal level." There's really a lot more to this topic than I expected.

Here's a story I saw in the news that caught my imagination, as it kinda fits in here.

A 39 year old married woman gets pregnant for the first time. She's over-the-top excited, reading books to her baby bump, playing music, etc.

Because of the woman's "advanced" age, her doctor asked her to have an amniocentesis. Results come back. Doctor tells the couple the baby is "incompatible with life" and recommends terminating the pregnancy the next day.

The woman refuses. She starts a daily prayer regimen.

At 35 weeks in her pregnancy, the doctor calls the woman. It turns out the same day her test results had come back however many weeks ago, another 39 year old woman's had come back too. The files got mixed up—there was nothing wrong with her son. However, the other woman was now in for a world of hurt.

The son was born perfectly healthy and is now 23, a college grad and going back for more education.

The old non-Seth side of me thinks this stuff happens, it was "just" a mistake (a bad one, could have been worse). The Seth side of me looks at things differently and I wonder... did she change the past? Or with her earnest praying, did she create another probability? Or what...? I don't think there's a way to know from this perspective.

[Sena]

The Seth side of me looks at things differently and I wonder... did she change the past? Or with her earnest praying, did she create another probability?

Deb, as the fetus in her womb was physically a part of her, in Sethian terms it wass perfectly possible for her to change the situation for the better.

[inavalan]

That happened all the time between me and my former wife. Clearly, only one of us could be correct in our memories, possibly neither of us. One or both of us had a memory of a past that just wasn't so.

This happens all the time between my wife and me, too. I'm sure she just altered her memories to match her interest ... 

[inavalan]

The Seth side of me looks at things differently and I wonder... did she change the past? Or with her earnest praying, did she create another probability?

About a month ago, I had a similar experience.

I had a problem I didn't know how to address, and I asked subconscious to find a solution. Then I went to sleep.

In the morning, I read a few pages from a book I had started just a couple of days before: Zeland's "Transurfing". The first paragraphs I read gave me the solution I asked for before going to bed.

Now, that was the conclusion of a long chain of events that aligned perfectly in linear time:
- months ago, Deb read Zeland's book and decided to share about it by posting on this forum
- nobody replied to her post until a few days ago (Eduard), when it caught my attention
- I looked up the book, some reviews that intrigued me, and although Zeland's phylosopfy conflicted with my beliefs, several of his conclusions were similar to mine; so, reluctantly, I started to read / browse his book (it has like 700 pages !?)
- my problem (a recurrent problem, that recently was dormant) manifested the evening before, acutely enough to make me ask subconscious for a solution
- the very next morning, the very first paragraph I read gave me the solution, significant enough to make sense of several past situations / circumstances in my life, including what I consider to be my life's lesson (!)

How did this happen? Is it possible that all those events built up to this "climax" by chance? Could it be by design? Is it possible that the subconscious went back and rearranged the past to give me the solution? Certainly I don't remember the past to have changed.

Either way, I was thankful for the solution.

[inavalan]

It turns out the same day her test results had come back however many weeks ago, another 39 year old woman's had come back too. The files got mixed up—there was nothing wrong with her son. However, the other woman was now in for a world of hurt.

This is important. It highlights that changing the past can generate "collateral damage" (!)

Recently, on another forum, I read an older post in which somebody presented his way of manifesting his wishes. The "method" was pretty straightforward (hypnosis / NLP), although the poster presented it with a religious camouflage.

What I wanted to mention here was one of his examples of success. He manifested a large sum of money: a distant relative unexpectedly died and left him the money. What the poster didn't notice is that for his wish to be fulfilled, his relative had to die. Collateral damage!

We should be careful with our wishes, be very specific, and put restrictions of safety and of benefit to everybody involved, as Neville Goddard used to recommend.

[Deb]

We should be careful with our wishes, be very specific, and put restrictions of safety and of benefit to everybody involved, as Neville Goddard used to recommend.

The thing is, though, that Seth makes it pretty clear that while we can and do create reality cooperatively, we can't cause harm to or affect another person by our own acts alone. So... the guy whose relative died: I doubt the inheritor had a hand in the relative's death. My thoughts went to another scenario: The relative was going to die anyway. Framework 2 knew this man needed money and fulfilled that by getting him put into the will—along with several other lucky people, no doubt. So much (emotionally) easier to inherit money from a distant relative, rather than someone you're close to.

Then there's this:

It turns out the same day her test results had come back however many weeks ago, another 39 year old woman's had come back too. The files got mixed up—there was nothing wrong with her son. However, the other woman was now in for a world of hurt.

This is important. It highlights that changing the past can generate "collateral damage" (!)

When Sena wrote that fetus was a part of the woman and it was possible for her to change the situation for the better, my mind went to the OTHER woman, mom#2. That made me look up the accuracy of amniocentesis, and it's not 100%. So then the optimist in me thinks: Since mom#2 was not told her baby would be incompatible with life, termination would not have been recommended. She could have carried her baby to full term and it also could have been fine. I hope so.

But yes, I agree that we have to be careful and specific about what we wish for. While I believe F2 / ATI  / the Universe are benevolent, clarity could only bring good things for all. (I saw The Monkey's Paw when I was a little kid, it left an impression.) And I think they also have a sense of humor.

Loved your Leland story inavalan, as they say, every step and choice in our lives has brought us to this moment. Just one more synchronicity to add to the list.

[inavalan]

The thing is, though, that Seth makes it pretty clear that while we can and do create reality cooperatively, we can't cause harm to or affect another person by our own acts alone. So...

I know ... That's why I was kind of surprised reading this:

"This time the psychic safety valve has had too much. The nicest thing that could happen would be that you suddenly blew your stack and kicked him. The worst thing that could happen would be that once again you restrain the acknowledgement of the pent up, perfectly natural aggression that is now ready to explode — so you send out a thought-form out of all proportion to any of the events that have transpired. The thought-form causes your friend severe harm; and all of this because you were afraid that one stray aggressive thought of yours was more powerful than the vitality that resides in each of you."
—SS Appendix: ESP Class Session: Tuesday, January 12, 1971

So, it seems that we can harm each other. Maybe not as much as we can harm ourselves, but ...

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Wow, this is a great discussion Deb. Thanks for starting this.


I believe that the ideas having to do with changing our past are directly related to those having to do with probable realities. 

In Seth Speaks, Chapter 16, (the chapter where Seth talks about Probable Realities) Session 566, Seth describes a method that a person can use to change their past. I believe that this was the method that Lynda Dahl used in Deb's initial post above (see the 2 paragraphs immediately below).

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.



In the last few days, I've been musing over this issue of changing you past and probable realities.  It's always seemed to me that whenever we've discussed this topic, something has been missing from the discussion and I've never been able to quite put my finger on it.

The night before last, I woke up at 4:00 am and had to use the restroom. While doing so, and while being in a very relaxed and open-minded state of mind, the following intuitive idea came to me.


Probable realities are like Seth's concepts of simultaneous time.



In our 3D camouflage reality, time appears to occur as a series of events, one following the other in sequence. 

However, in other realms, outside of our 3D camouflage reality, all time is simultaneous.



Along these same lines, in our 3D camouflage reality, the events that we experience, we perceive to be "real" while those that we don't experience, we perceive to be "not real".

However, in other realms, outside of our 3D camouflage reality, all events, every single probable event is just as "real" and just as "not real" as every other probable event. This includes those that we experience in our 3D camouflage reality and those that we don't.


Here's what Seth says about this topic in "Seth Speaks" chapter 16.

The past existed in multitudinous ways. You only experienced one probable past. (S566)

In terms of probabilities, therefore, you choose certain acts, unconsciously transform these into physical events or objects, and then perceive them. But those unchosen events also go out from you and are projected into these other forms. (S567)

The other probable actions, however, are as valid as they ever were, though you have not chosen to actualize them physically. They are carried out as effectively as the one you chose to accept. If there was a strong emotional charge behind one of the rejected probable actions, it may even have greater validity as an act than the one you chose. (S565)

[...] Each of these probable selves consider themselves the real you, of course, and to any one of them you would be the probable self; .... (S565)

Because you do not accept them all as physical events, you do not perceive their strength or durability. Your lack of perception cannot destroy their validity, however. 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. (S565)


-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Deb. That's an interesting story about the 39 year old married woman.

In several places across the Seth information, Seth talks about the experience of humans, in both the pre-birth and post birth state; see TES9, Session 503 and 504, SS Ch13, S557 and WTH, Ch12, June 15, 1984. In some of these sessions, Seth tells us that sometimes, a person may opt to either die while a fetus or live for only a short period of time after birth.  Seth says that there are various reasons for this.


I think that when the doctor came back and told the couple that the baby was incompatible with life, this set up the probable experience that this couple could have a baby that would have many problems. Perhaps at this stage, a being who was only planning to live for a short time, was working out the details of the life that they would share with this woman, so that all 3 of them would experience this arrangement of events.

However, this woman consciously did not want this experience and so she started to pray for a different experience and by doing so, she changed her reality.

Upon recognizing her prayers, this woman's inner self worked with other inner selves, and arranged for a new scenario.

In this new scenario, this first being, who was planning to be born by her, opted to be born by someone else instead. Along with this, a second being who was planning to be born and live a long prosperous life, opted to change places with this first being and be born by this woman instead.

In this way, by praying, this woman notified her inner self that she wanted a different reality and by hearing her prayers, her inner self created a different reality for her.



Now, along with this, the first being found a women who was willing and agreed to share in his planned short term life experiences for her own particular growth purposes and reasons. There are no accidents.


This is "my" understanding of Seth's explanation of how prayers and this type of reality creation actually works.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

"This time the psychic safety valve has had too much. The nicest thing that could happen would be that you suddenly blew your stack and kicked him. The worst thing that could happen would be that once again you restrain the acknowledgement of the pent up, perfectly natural aggression that is now ready to explode — so you send out a thought-form out of all proportion to any of the events that have transpired. The thought-form causes your friend severe harm; and all of this because you were afraid that one stray aggressive thought of yours was more powerful than the vitality that resides in each of you."

—SS Appendix: ESP Class Session: Tuesday, January 12, 1971

So, it seems that we can harm each other. Maybe not as much as we can harm ourselves, but ...

Hi All

On occasion here, a person who is new to the Seth ideas joins our group. For people who are fairly new to Seth's concepts, the statement made above by Seth regarding both creating a thought-form and this thought-form causing someone harm, may be somewhat disconcerting and I think misleading.  From my understanding of the Seth information, here's what I believe Seth is actually saying here.



First of all, Seth does tell us that each one of us does, in fact, create what he calls thought-forms. He says that we do this all the time, mostly without realizing it. We do this via our feeling and emotions. Throughout "Seth Speaks", Seth tells us quite a bit about these thought-forms, as well as ghosts, and the information about these 2 topics can be found in the index of this book.



Then, in "Seth Speaks" Chapter 19, Seth tells us about the various stages of consciousness that we can find ourselves in, or visit (A-1, A-2, A-3, etc.).  In Session 575, of this same chapter, he tells us that in any of these stages, thought-forms, may be perceived. These include projections from the personal subconscious and projections from the collective unconscious.

Here he tells us that any of these may appear beneficial or threatening according to the attitude of the personality involved. He also tells us that often they are incipient forms given activity by the personality who encounters them.

He says that a person who encounters them, only has to turn their attention away from them to deactivate them. He also says that if a materialization appears threatening, then wish it peace and withdraw your attention from it.





Along with this, in "Seth Speaks" Chapter 17, Seth tells us about the nature of good and evil. In this chapter in Session 568, Seth also tells us that we create our reality (one of his most powerful concepts that he reiterates throughout many of his books) and that we can create a devil or choose not to. Here in this session he says:

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.

[...]

There are, then, no devils waiting to carry anyone off, unless you create them yourself, in which case the power resides in you and not in the mock devils.






Given this information, what is Seth actually saying in the ESP Class Session?

First he is telling us that we do, in fact, create thought forms. However, in regards to these thought forms harming someone else, this is somewhat dependent upon the beliefs of that person.

If a person doesn't believe in thought-forms, then I don't believe that the thought-form can harm them.

If a person does believe in thought-forms, but doesn't believe that they can harm them, then I also believe that the thought-form can't harm them.

However, if a person does believe in thought-forms, and does believe that they can be harmed by these thought-forms, then I do believe that the person may be susceptible to harm from the thought-form.


My basis for this conclusion comes from what Seth tells us about both thought-forms and from what he says in Session 568 about creating your reality and belief in the devil.


-jbseth

[T.M.]

Hi All,

I always thought that particular passage by Seth was just a hypothetical example, for teaching purposes.

I still don't think a random thought, even if powerfully expressed, can do any meaningful, lasting harm to another person.
Unless perhaps the other person is aware of and accepting of it.

[Deb]

Unless perhaps the other person is aware of and accepting of it.

I remember Seth saying that if you expect a certain type of behavior from them, good or bad, they will subconsciously alter their behavior to comply with your image of them. Again, there is the element of consent. Sorry, I couldn't pin down the quote.

BTW, for those that saw this topic take a dip yesterday, I've moved the associated posts to a non-public board, Non-public Discussions, in case anyone wants to add to it. At least this time there was no colorful language involved.

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Deb,

I remember that quote too! I still find it a wee bit shocking at times. I wonder how much goes on in our non-conscious minds at time. Particularly in the western world anyways; I think it's the rare few that takes the time to ascertain and develop what's rolling around in the mind too. That's a good bit why I don't think an occasional negative thought impacts others to any great extent.

[jbseth]

Hi All, Hi Deb, Hi T.M.,

Wow that's a really interesting quote. It seem vaguely familiar to me, but I haven't got a clue as to where Seth may have made such a comment.

I'm wondering if there's anyone else here who recalls this quote as well.

LarryH, DaveD, Sena, Chasman, do any of you recall this quote or something similar?

-jbseth

[chasman]

thank you all, for your interesting thoughts here.

jbseth, I don't recall exactly.
but I'm listening to the Audible version of Seth Speaks now.

and he says something to the effect that,
telepathy is going on all the time.

which perhaps is similar.

Seth's emphasis on how our expectations are a huge important factor,
ties in here, could be?

[Deb]

Funny, this quote has come up 3 times in the past here.

"Now: you must understand, for one thing, that telepathy operates constantly at a subconscious level. If you continually expect any individual to behave in a particular manner, then you are constantly sending him telepathic suggestions that he will do so. Every individual reacts to suggestion. According then to the specific conditions existing at the time, such an individual will to some extent or another act according the mass suggestions he has received."
—TES8 Session 340 May 10, 1967

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Wow. That's an interesting quote.

"such an individual will to some extent or another act according the mass suggestions he has received."

I wonder how often people act the way they do because we expect them to. That's really interesting. Thanks Deb.

-jbseth

[chasman]

thank you for posting that Deb.
very interesting, indeed.