Why do we have wars?

[Deb]

Ever agonize over the cruelty and ugliness of war? The following quotes are from The Early Sessions Book 1, Session 31. Seth covers a lot of things that have been on my mind lately: entities, creation and maintenance of our current reality, inner and outer senses—each of which deserve it's own topic. I'll try to focus here on the entities' role in the creation of our plane of existence and how war and killing are related to that. It seems it's not something "we" as humans created, but instead a task created by our entities, to overcome. Anyone else feeling set up and a little used by our entities? Or are we our entities and have volunteered for this mission?

Honestly, the Early and Deleted Sessions are sources of a wealth of information that was not included in the formal Seth books. I'm grateful to Rob (and Laurel and Rick) for getting these books published. If it wasn't for them, all of this extra priceless information could have been easily buried and lost. Laurel, Mary and Rich indicated that there is still unpublished material and it's just a matter of coaxing it into publication. I'm trying my darnedest.

Thoughts about the material below would be greatly appreciated.

Seth: It is obvious by now that entities on any plane create that plane, and a strong portion of their personalities are similarly constructed to deal with the mechanics of the particular plane.

In a very simple example, consider that you yourself use your own energy to create your dream world. In this way you create your so-called real camouflage world, the only difference being that the dream world images do not have duration in physical time...

In the creation of the physical world a certain giving up of individuality is absolutely necessary, since the over material environment must appear more or less the same to everyone. Of course it will never appear absolutely the same, but it must have a fairly dependable overall coherence.

...

Incidentally, your universe was not created by all entities, but only by the entities that needed a particular kind of experience. The fact that manipulation is important upon your plane is one of the main causes for wars.

Rob: Seth, what do you mean exactly when you use the word universe? Are you referring to just our own solar system?

Seth: By universe I mean physical systems. That is, all you can see now are physical systems. I am speaking of the universe in your terms, as even being all that your telescopes can pick up. In a way your knowledge is limited to physical systems. I am speaking of the stars and planets you see in your sky, but not of the invisible systems that may exist simultaneously with them.

War does not exist on other planes. It exists on your plane as a by-product of certain challenges which the creator-entities wished to solve through materialization...

. . .

The inner senses operate on all planes and under all circumstances. The outer senses vary according to the plane and circumstance. The outer senses are dependable only in terms of the definite plane for which they were constructed. Their purpose of course is to enable the conscious personality to recognize as valid camouflage patterns which are only valid under certain conditions.

. . .

Joseph was right when he spoke of entities creating stages upon which to act out their problems. The point of course being that once the play begins the actors are so completely immersed in their roles that they forget that they themselves wrote the play, constructed the sets, or are even staging it...

If you know that a situation is imaginary you are not going to body trying to solve it...

Suffice it to say that to kill for self-protection or even to kill a natural prey on your plane does not involve you in what we might call for the first time, I believe, karmic consequences.

To kill for nothing more serious than convenience or to kill for the sake of killing involves rather dire consequences on your plane, and the emotion or emotional value behind such killing is often important as what is killed. That is the lust for killing is also a matter that brings dire consequences regardless of, in many cases, the particular living thing or things that are killed.

[jbseth]

Honestly, the Early and Deleted Sessions are sources of a wealth of information that was not included in the formal Seth books. I'm grateful to Rob (and Laurel and Rick) for getting these books published. If it wasn't for them, all of this extra priceless information could have been easily buried and lost.

Hi Deb, Hi All.

Here, Here,  I completely agree.

and I would add not only "buried and lost", but along with this, I would say that a lot of the other information would also have been "misunderstood".

For me, there has been so much information in just the books, TES1-9, that has shed so much new light on some topics that apparently were never really talked about in any of the later "Seth" books.

- jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,


Seth had a lot of interesting things to say about war.  I think that when we start to look at some of many things that he had to say about this topic, we can begin to put together a better understanding of that nature of war and why it exists.

In regards to this topic of war, the Seth Search Engine that you've made available to us, has been priceless. Thank you so much for that.

In regards to "war", here are some of the other things that Seth had to say.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

In Seth's statement in the Spoiler above, where he says that "we'll have to work out the violence that violence has wrought", I think that "maybe" this is what we was referring to when he said that "war exists on your plane as a by-product of certain challenges which the creator-entities wished to solve through materialization..."

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

- jbseth

[chasman]

hey Deb and jbseth,

         interesting idea that we have been set up.
I don't know. perhaps yes.

other thoughts

to think its ok to kill people, is a mindset.
to think its acceptable to kill people is a mindset.

it is a bad habit.

its been going on for thousands of years.

its wrong.

but its ongoing.

it is systemic.

the arms manufacturers make a living and I would think are thriving at it.

the militaristic humans.

what a shame.

humans are capable of super compassion, kindness, thoughtfulness.

and such horror.

its ignorance. the enlightened do not partake.

when enough people practice enough kindness, there will be peace for all.

[Sena]

War does not exist on other planes. It exists on your plane as a by-product of certain challenges which the creator-entities wished to solve through materialization...

Deb, thanks for this interesting topic. This Seth teaching seems a bit depressing because it seems to imply that war is inevitable. The positive aspect is that if many people begin to follow Seth's or similar teachings, war might be prevented, Consider the following scenario:

2021 - A new virus, Covid 21 originates in China and spreads around the world. More virulent than Covid 19. China's economy tanks. There follow two alternative scenarios:

Scenario X: X is President of the U.S. He encourages world-wide free trade agreements which help the world economy including China. There is no war.

Scenario Y: Y is President of the U.S. He imposes sanctions on China. The Chinese economy is badly hit, leading to mass internal unrest. China decided to invade South Korea, where there are 28,500 American troops. Many American soldiers are killed. The U.S. launches a massive conventional bombing raid on Beijing. While the American planes are in the air, China launches nuclear strikes on major American cities. The U.S, retaliates with massive nuclear strikes on all major Chinese cities. The population of China is reduced 50%. The U.S, takes over China and establishes a democratic government there. The world has to cope with Nuclear Winter.

[Deb]

Wow. Well there's a infinite number of possibilities with any situation, so how about we consider one more:

Scenario Z: Regardless of who the next US president is, the world has learned a lot from the Covid19 experience and prevents another outbreak. Countries recover from the economic loss from Covid19. Major wars become a thing of the past because the major countries are too well armed and to start a nuclear war would have drastic consequences for all of civilization. Political leaders realize that. We are learning that war is not inevitable, thereby making progress on the challenge "gifted" to us by the creator-entities.

[Sena]

Major wars become a thing of the past because the major countries are too well armed and to start a nuclear war would have drastic consequences for all of civilization.

Deb, I hope you are right, but sometimes the leaders of nations go "insane". The people in the Japanese government who ordered the attack on Pearl Harbor were absolutely insane; they had no hope of winning a war against the U.S.

[jbseth]

War does not exist on other planes. It exists on your plane as a by-product of certain challenges which the creator-entities wished to solve through materialization...

Hi Deb,  Hi All,

Last night I came across Session 491 in TES9.  There is a lot of what Seth says in this particular session that seems to speak directly to many of the issues that Deb brought in here in her initial post, including the comment above.

I'll paraphrase much of what he says in this session below. While Seth does say all of this in this session, he does it in his own manner, which means that it's not actually written in this specific order.



Seth begins this session by talking about probable realities. He reminds us that in other probable realities, other experiences have been chosen.

Seth says that the problem of aggression is simply a problem of using your own energies constructively.

He tells us that in other realities aggressive instincts were almost automatically channeled toward constructive areas. He says that progression in these systems was not swift or certain. The problem of how to handle energy constructively was put in very simple terms.

In these systems no violence was allowed (it almost seems to me that here, Seth is talking about the "Lumanians"). Seth says that here, the danger that exists is a lack of change in the status quo.



Seth says that while he knows of such systems, he has no experience in them. (This statement seems inconsistent to me. As I recall, in SS, Seth does say that in a previous life, he was a Lumanian.) He also says that many entities have no experience in our system of reality.



Then he tells us that in our system, we've decided to work with large amounts of energy. He says that our system itself rapidly responds and mirrors this use of energy.

He says that accepting the problem of aggression and strong energy necessitates quick reactions and a strong unconscious mass communication.

Then he says that highly explosive unstable energy can lead us to a tragic war.  He also tells us that, at the last minute however, this could be transformed into a massive earthquake, for example, or the birth of an island.



He says that if we knew how to handle energy effectively, if we realized that our thoughts created our reality, there would be no need for the physical environment. (Is this perhaps the main reason why we're here?)

Then he says that our earth is expendable, for it will be created again, as often as needed.



Then, in the very next session, session 492, Seth almost begins this session with the words, "In the early days when I first spoke to you, you would not have understood things that I tell you know."

I think that this is a very important point that Seth makes here. Often what he says about some topic in a session, will be explained later on in much more detail and perhaps even in much different terms.

- jbseth

[Sena]

Then he tells us that in our system, we've decided to work with large amounts of energy. He says that our system itself rapidly responds and mirrors this use of energy.

He says that accepting the problem of aggression and strong energy necessitates quick reactions and a strong unconscious mass communication.

jbseth, it appears that this phenomenon of "aggression and strong energy" applies mainly to the leaders of countries. There is no evidence that the majority of people in Japan in 1941 were clamoring for war. To become the leader of a country, whether authoritarian or democratic, certainly requires strong energy. The ordinary people (the voters) may be attracted to leaders who display strong energy. An example in the U.K. was Margaret Thatcher who became famous in ordering the sinking of the Argentinian ship, the General Belgrano. In the subsequent election, she was voted in with an increased majority.

[jbseth]

jbseth, it appears that this phenomenon of "aggression and strong energy" applies mainly to the leaders of countries.

Hi Sena,

I didn't see anything in this session where Seth said that this capability mainly applies to leaders.
If Seth actually said this, could you point it out to us. I'd be very interested in that.

-jbseth

[Deb]

Wow, Session 491 is an interesting session, thanks for that. For such a short one, there was a lot of information. Seth talked quite a bit about constructive use of energy, and how fast-paced our system is compared to others, that we are relatively impatient and decided to work with large amounts of energy. It sounded like the old no pain/no gain scenario: "When you are forced to use [energy] constructively you learn little." We make a lot of mistakes here, as we are learning how to use energy, and then when there are repercussions and we will learn from our mistakes. Painfully slowly if you ask me. He also said that the entities choose the system that suits their personalities and learnings. I'd love to flesh out my understanding of entities.

I remember Seth talking about the Lumanians in Seth Speaks. I'm not sure that's who Seth was referring to when he spoke of other probable realities in 491, although it could have been. He didn't give them a name though, and preceded his comments with "In others" [other probable systems], in the plural. He did say in SS that he had been a Lumanian and was later born in Atlantis.

And his comment about our earth being expendable was softened him saying not one portion of consciousness is lost in the process, and that each epoch that ever existed on our planet still does exist (as he said about the Lumanians in SS).

I found Seth's comments about how we help each other to progress whether we realize it or not or intend to interesting. Everyone has a purpose, even the haters. Then he goes onto that many seem to be a poor example and are simply examples of what NOT to be. I had to smile because it made me think of Despair.com's poster titled Mistakes: "It could be the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others." Lol.

Well, after all of this I don't feel as much put out about our entities setting us up for war. I actually found that to be a little bit of a relief, in that "we" as humans didn't invent war, it was dropped in our laps as another problem to solve in this reality. Seth did say, in general, we are here to learn. This is not a vacation hotspot. Here's an old post about what we are learning: https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=33

And I also can't forget the basics: "you get what you concentrate upon" and "you make your own reality." Also free will and choosing probabilities are at work. I'll keep my expectations on the idea that we have made progress in our learning, that the world as we know it will not be destroyed in an atomic war, and there is hope for humanity and some day we'll get it right. That may seem naive and pollyanna-ish, but I'll do no harm thinking that way and if I get vaporized by an atomic blast tomorrow, I won't know any better. I've been more conscious of my thoughts and intentions lately.

By the way, I had a couple of helpers with all of this today. Chicken #1, Jade, seemed really interested in Jane's photo. Chicken #2, Ginger, found the Seth material very comfortable. Rich used to say to me, at the end of every email or phone call, "Say hi to Ginger for me." Oddly, I don't even remember telling him about her.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi Deb, Hi All,

In TES9, S491, Seth seems to be talking about, "the problem of aggression".  In NOPR, I found two other sessions (S634 and S673) that seem to relate well to this discussion of aggression in S491. What he says in these other two sessions in NOPR, makes me think that some of this discussion in S491 applies to us directly as individuals, and not just mainly the world's political leaders.



In S634, Seth tells us that aggressiveness is just forceful action. He tell us that any attempt to thwart its flow can result in problems for us. He says that our problem is not how to deal with it aggression, but rather, how to handle it when it has remained unexpressed, ignored, and denied over a long period of time.

In this session, he seems to be talking about aggression, in terms of both a world-wide mass event type of level and at a very personal individual level, like when you're angry at your boss, or when you want to kill (not literally) your spouse.



In S673, Seth also seems to be talking about aggression, in terms of both at a very personal individual level and also at a world-wide mass event type level. In this session he talks about how a belief in "powerlessness" often causes problems.

Here he talks about how sometimes a seemingly docile person will unexpectedly lose it and commit horrendous crimes and mass murders. He also talks about how nations who feel powerless will often start wars.



Given what Seth has to say in these two session, I don't think that when Seth talked about aggressiveness in S491, he was mainly referring to world leaders. I think that his comments in that session about aggressive also very much applies to us as individuals as well.

Below are two spoilers that each contain some of the information that I'm talking about here.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

- jbseth

[Sena]

In TES9, S491, Seth seems to be talking about, "the problem of aggression". In NOPR, I found two other sessions (S634 and S673) that seem to relate well to this discussion of aggression in S491. What he says in these other two sessions in NOPR, makes me think that some of this discussion in S491 applies to us directly as individuals, and not just mainly the world's political leaders.

jbseth, I agree with you that Seth's statements about aggression apply to individuals as well as to nations, but the topic of this thread is "Why do we have wars?". It seems to me that aggressive leaders are responsible for wars, but it is quite possible that such leaders are voted into office by people who are outwardly peaceful but have unconscious aggressive impulses.

Thanks for drawing our attention to NOPR on the topic of war:

"Any attempt to impair the flow of true aggression results in a distortive, uneven, explosive pseudo-aggression that causes wars, individual neurosis, and a great many of your problems in all areas." (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)

"War has often served as an emotional stimulus, as an escape in terms of drama, excitement and belonging for those who have felt alone, powerless and isolated. In its own way, a neighborhood fire serves the same purpose, among others, and so does a local or regional disaster."

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

In my previous post, I was responding to your comment in Reply #8 above, where you said:

"jbseth, it appears that this phenomenon of "aggression and strong energy" applies mainly to the leaders of countries."

My response to this was that in regards to what Seth had to say about "aggression and strong energy", he seemed to be applying it to private individuals as well as world leaders and groups of people.




In regards to "Why do we have wars?" In your post above you say the following:

"It seems to me that aggressive leaders are responsible for wars,"


I'm not sure that I completely agree with you on this. When I think about either of the two major world wars or even some of the other smaller wars, I think that there's actually a lot more that goes on in regards to war than just some countries leaders.

Seth talks about this in NOME, Ch 6, S835. Here's what Seth says about war NOME, Ch 6, S835:

The enemy is obvious. His intentions are evil. Wars are basically examples of mass suicide — embarked upon, however, with all of the battle's paraphernalia, carried out through mass suggestion, and through the nation's greatest resources, by men who are convinced that the universe is unsafe, that the self cannot be trusted, and that strangers are always hostile. You take it for granted that the species is aggressively combative. You must out-think the enemy nation before you yourself are destroyed. These paranoiac tendencies are largely hidden beneath man's nationalistic banners.




Here's my thinking on this.

How many people "willingly" went off to fight their countries battles, during WW1?  Very many.

How many people "willingly" went off to fight their countries battles in WW2. Again, very many.

How many people actually protested and rioted against going off to fight in any of these wars? Virtually none that I'm aware of.


You can't just blame the Japanese leaders, for example, during WW2, since the Japanese people supplied the Japanese Army with about a million soldiers who were directly involved in the war in China. Then later on, when the Japanese military, asked for "kama-kazi's", once again the Japanese people stepped forward to do that as well. There were no protests and riots by the Japanese people against any of this, that I'm aware of.


On the other hand, I'm not naive here. I have no doubt that very many of the Japanese people, during WW2 probably believed that they would be killed by their own military, if they attempted to protest the war effort in any way whatsoever.  And the truth is, they probably would have been killed for attempting to do so.  However, by choosing to go along with it, they opted indirectly to support it.



-jbseth

[Deb]

It seems there is no one cut-and-dried reason we have wars. I remember reading in NoPR (session 635) that overpopulation is compensated for by wars, it may have already been quoted here, I've lost track. I have to wonder what's operating there. Certainly dark. I'll be putting up a post in a few minutes, reviewing the book Mind to Matter. Dawson mentions wars in the quote I'm providing, so a little tie-in with this topic. I think he's the ultimate Optimist, with a capital O.

"Presently you have a condition in which overpopulation is compensated for by wars (pause), and if not by wars then by diseases. Yet who must die? The young who would be the parents of children. An understanding of the nature of natural guilt's integrity would save you from such predicaments."

"In those terms overpopulation is a violation. In the cases of both war and of overgrowth, the species has ignored its natural guilt. When a man kills another, regardless of his other beliefs a certain portion of his conscious mind is always aware of the violation involved, justify it though he may."

—NoPR Chapter 8: Session 635, January 24, 1973

[Sena]

"It seems to me that aggressive leaders are responsible for wars,"


I'm not sure that I completely agree with you on this. When I think about either of the two major world wars or even some of the other smaller wars, I think that there's actually a lot more that goes on in regards to war than just some countries leaders.

jbseth, it is interesting to read Seth's remarks on the Vietnam war:

"Give us a moment ... Without going into any detail, I simply want to point out that in the United States strong national efforts were made after World War II to divert the servicemen's energies into other areas on their return home. Many who entered that war feeling powerless were given advantages after it was over — incentives, education, benefits they did not have before it. They were given the means to power in their own eyes. They were also accepted home as heroes, and while many certainly were disillusioned, in the whole framework of the country's mood the veterans were welcomed. (Pause at 10:11.) I am speaking generally now about the war under discussion, for there were certainly exceptions, yet most of the men involved in it learned something from their experiences. They turned against the idea of violence, and each in his own way recognized the personal psychological ambiguities of their feelings during combat. They were told by politicians that it was to be the last war, and the irony is that most of those in uniform believed it. (I, Robert Butts, was one of the believers.) The lie did not become truth but it became more nearly so, for despite their failures the ex-servicemen managed to bring up children who would not go to war willingly, who would question its premise. In an odd way this made it even more difficult for those who did go into the next two, less extensive wars, for the country was not behind either one. Any sense of powerlessness on the part of individual fighting men was given expression as before, this time in a more local blood bath, but the code itself had become shaky. This release was not as accepted as it had been before, even within the ranks. By the last war (in Vietnam), the country was as much against it as for it, and the men's feelings of powerlessness were reinforced after it was over. This is the reason for the incidents of violence on the part of returning servicemen.* Hate, left alone then, does not erupt into violence. Hatred brings a sense of power and initiates communication and action. In your terms it is the build up of natural anger; in animals, say, it would lead to a face-to-face encounter, of battle stances in which each creature's body language, motion, and ritual would serve to communicate a dangerous position. One animal or the other would simply back down. Growling or roaring might be involved." (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)

[jbseth]

Hi Sena,

And then, in the 1990 Gulf War, Americans were once again willing to participate in that war. The feeling here at that time, seemed to be to stop an "evil" dictator (Saddam Hussein) from taking over a rather defenseless country (Kuwait) in his grab for power and resources.

Then following this, immediately after the 9/11 bombings in New York City, young people here in America were once again signing up for the military, by the bucket loads.

Nobody had to ask them to do this, these people felt it was "their duty".

-jbseth