Seth on the multidimensional self (Sessions 559, 96, and 453)

[Sena]

"If you have any intuitive understanding as yet concerning the nature of the entity or whole self, you will see that it has placed you in a position in which certain abilities, insights, and experience can be realized, and in which your unique kind of consciousness can be nurtured. Your slightest experience has far more repercussions within this multidimensional environment than the physical brain can conceive. For if you are intensely preoccupied with what may seem to be one infinitesimally minute aspect of reality, and while you seem to be completely embedded within it, only the most "surface" elements of the self are so entranced. I do not like the term "surface" in this regard, though I have used it to suggest the multitudinous portions of the self that are otherwise engaged — some of them as entranced in their reality as you are in yours. The entity, the true multidimensional self, is aware of all of its experiences, and this knowledge is to some extent available to these other portions of the self, including of course the physical self as you know it. These various portions of the self in fact will eventually (in your terms) become fully aware. Period. This awareness will automatically alter what now seems to be their nature, and add to the multiplicitude of existence." (Session 559, from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts"

https://amzn.eu/9wPn3bf

"There is no one reality. There are many, in fact infinite, realities. There is no beginning and end. When beginnings and endings are spoken of, the implication is always there, that there must be but one reality, and that it must have a beginning in time and an ending in time."

"This primary energy gestalt may be thought of as straddling all realities, or existing in the infinite realities of which we have spoken. Yet in this prime gestalt that is unitary, there is again an infinite diversity and literally numberless personalities. Nor are these personalities that compose the prime psychic gestalt dependent or submissive to any one dominating personality within the gestalt."

"They, or the inhabitants of such realities, do not perceive your plane of existence for the same reason. This does not mean that any one field or plane is more valid than another. The closest field or plane is that one that you create, that you call the dream world, and that you imagine to be unsubstantial, impermanent, fleeting, having no reality except during your own contact with it.

This has nothing to do with reincarnation, but involves levels of experience, manipulations in other realities, that are a natural result of the psycho-physical gestalt of a human individual."

—TES3 Session 96 October 12, 1964

"Any consciousness is therefore innately aware of its basic identity. The inner self knows what is behind the stars and planets that the eyes views, but the ego would be swept aside in panic. This system spoken of earlier, the sun and original 9 planets, in your terms, have long ago passed into and formed other universal systems. The whole cosmic structure however was the materialization of one original thought, for the thought, the real reality, must always exist before the representation of it. There was intelligence therefore within that first system, for without the intelligence there would have been no system. Now you may take a break and we shall continue—and (to Sue:) my heartiest wishes to our friend. Now. Each thought forms its own electromagnetic reality, and is composed of energy which can never be dissipated, but only transformed. The subjective reality of one man, left alone in the universe, would emit enough energy to seed another. That sentence is not distorted. The energy that is within you is inconceivable to you." (Session 453, from "The Early Sessions: Book 9 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

I find the first quote from Seth Speaks quite interesting: "The entity, the true multidimensional self, is aware of all of its experiences, and this knowledge is to some extent available to these other portions of the self, including of course the physical self as you know it.".What it implies is that my entity is not something "up there". I am part of my entity.

[jbseth]

The entity, the true multidimensional self, is aware of all of its experiences, and this knowledge is to some extent available to these other portions of the self, including of course the physical self as you know it. These various portions of the self in fact will eventually (in your terms) become fully aware.

I find the first quote from Seth Speaks quite interesting: "The entity, the true multidimensional self, is aware of all of its experiences, and this knowledge is to some extent available to these other portions of the self, including of course the physical self as you know it.".What it implies is that my entity is not something "up there". I am part of my entity.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Yes, I agree Sena, I too find this to be quite interesting.

Thanks for starting this topic.



Seth appears to be telling us that not only are we (our self) this physical body and this conscious mind, but we are also our inner self. I'll call this self, one reincarnational whole self. Then along with this, Seth also seems to be saying that all of our other reincarnational whole selves, and all of our probable selves, are encompassed within what Seth refers to as our "entity". Then Seth tells us that this entity, is also aware of all of its experiences.  That's a pretty amazing statement about who and what the self is all about.


If Seth is correct about this (and I'm going to assume he is, since he seems to know much more about this kind of thing than we do), then I'd say that many of our Freudian and Jungian based our psychologists, are still a long ways from understanding the true nature of the self. I'm not sure whether any of them are even aware of this "entity" level of the self, as Seth defines it.


Not only that, but Seth also tells us that these various portions of the self, will eventually become fully aware. I interpret this to suggest that we are "becoming" in some manner; that is, we are moving towards a point where we are fully aware of all of these other selves. This must be some sort of "conscious evolutionary process" that we are all working towards.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that this "becoming" has nothing to do with "time" as we think of it, but rather with some sort of expanded "awareness" or expanded "consciousness".  Perhaps, we could say that this is a goal.


Even though Seth says there are no real boundaries between the various layers of the self, throughout the typical day, I don't often think of "my" self, as being a self that's at the inner self level. Much less a self that's at the "entity" level. Do you?


I think the reason that Seth told us about all of this, was strictly for our benefit and for our educational purposes. We seem to be pretty far away from this understanding of who and what the "self" is, in regards to our present level of understanding in psychology, philosophy and/or science.


-jbseth

[Sena]

Even though Seth says there are no real boundaries between the various layers of the self, throughout the typical day, I don't often think of "my" self, as being a self that's at the inner self level. Much less a self that's at the "entity" level. Do you?

jbseth, I agree that is very difficult to be aware of my existence as an entity. I wonder whether some people suffering from psychosis have such an insight, but are unable to handle it. A psychotic patient may say "I am God", but be unable to cope with everyday life and end up being locked up in a hospital.
As for myself personally, if I have made a rather "odd" decision in life, a decision with both pros and cons, I wonder whether my entity may have impelled me to make that decision.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I agree, I think that sometimes people with psychosis do tap into something else. Perhaps something like a reincarnational life, a probable life, or perhaps even something that's very different, like one of those realities that can be experienced under LSD, ayashusca, or DMT. Any of which may include an experience of All That Is, or God.



Personally, I think that we can be made "aware" of the fact that some part of us is an entity, such as when Seth tells us about the structures of the various layers of the self. However, I don't think that we (us humans, jbseth, Sena, etc.) necessarily have the psyche or conscious structure yet, to be able to "experience" ourselves as our entity.




As an analogy, I kind of think of the entity as an actor, and the lives that this entity experiences as the various characters that this actor plays, either on stage, or on various television shows or in the movies. For example let's use the actor Tom Hanks for the following analogy.

In this analogy, Tom Hanks represents the entity and some of various characters that he's played represent the various lives of this entity. Tom Hanks played Jim Lovell, in the movie, Apollo 13, in 1995. He played Carl Hanratty, in the movie, Catch Me if You Can" in 2002. He played Charlie Wilson, in the movie, "Charlie Wilson's War" in 2007. He played Captain Richard Phillips, in the movie, "Captain Phillips" in 2013. He played Chesley Sullenberger, in the movie, "Sully" in 2016. By the way, all of these characters that Tom Hanks played are, in fact, real people who've led real lives.

In this analogy, Jim Lovell doesn't necessarily realize that he's Tom Hanks, but Tom Hanks knows that he's Jim Lovell.  Likewise, Charlie Wilson doesn't realize that he's Tom Hanks but Tom Hanks knows that he's also Charlie Wilson. Tom Hanks also knows that he's Carl Hanratty, Richard Phillips and Chesley Sullenberger.



What I'm trying to say here in this analogy is that Charlie Wilson can be "told" that he is a self and furthermore, that he is part of a larger self that is an entity (Tom Hanks). However, Charlie Wilson, at his stage of his conscious development doesn't have either the psyche capacity or the conscious capacity to take on the full blown experience that his entity, Tom Hanks, can and does experience.   

I don't believe that we have this capacity yet, either but I do believe that this is what we are growing and evolving towards.



I'm rather curious about this "odd" decision that you made in your life?  I'd like to hear about it, but "only" if you are "completely comfortable" in sharing it.  If not, then that too is very much OK.

-jbseth

[LarryH]

In this analogy, Tom Hanks represents the entity and some of various characters that he's played represent the various lives of this entity.

Reincarnation is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

[jbseth]

Reincarnation is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

Hi LarryH,

That's really funny. I love your sense of humor. 

-jbseth

[Sena]

In this analogy, Tom Hanks represents the entity and some of various characters that he's played represent the various lives of this entity. Tom Hanks played Jim Lovell, in the movie, Apollo 13, in 1995. He played Carl Hanratty, in the movie, Catch Me if You Can" in 2002. He played Charlie Wilson, in the movie, "Charlie Wilson's War" in 2007. He played Captain Richard Phillips, in the movie, "Captain Phillips" in 2013. He played Chesley Sullenberger, in the movie, "Sully" in 2016. By the way, all of these characters that Tom Hanks played are, in fact, real people who've led real lives.

In this analogy, Jim Lovell doesn't necessarily realize that he's Tom Hanks, but Tom Hanks knows that he's Jim Lovell.  Likewise, Charlie Wilson doesn't realize that he's Tom Hanks but Tom Hanks knows that he's also Charlie Wilson. Tom Hanks also knows that he's Carl Hanratty, Richard Phillips and Chesley Sullenberger.



What I'm trying to say here in this analogy is that Charlie Wilson can be "told" that he is a self and furthermore, that he is part of a larger self that is an entity (Tom Hanks). However, Charlie Wilson, at his stage of his conscious development doesn't have either the psyche capacity or the conscious capacity to take on the full blown experience that his entity, Tom Hanks, can and does experience.   

jbseth, interesting that you mention Tom Hanks. There may be a bit of synchronicity here. This is what I read yesterday in the Strassman book (before I read your post):

"Human thinking has different forms—rational thinking, emotional thinking, and spiritual
thinking—and each of them can be measured by IQ tests developed by David Wechsler, Daniel
Goleman, and Robert Emmons, respectively. An individual can score high on one or more or even
all of them. In the film Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks plays a character who might definitely score low
on the first test (rational thinking) but higher on the others. John Coffey of the The Green Mile
probably has a high spiritual IQ, but expresses modest capacity in the other areas. In corporate and
governmental America, some might make a rich career with a high Wechsler IQ (rational thinking)
score, but these institutions make high emotional and spiritual intelligence disadvantageous for a
career-seeking individual."

[jbseth]

jbseth, interesting that you mention Tom Hanks. There may be a bit of synchronicity here. This is what I read yesterday in the Strassman book (before I read your post):

Hi Sena, Hi All,

I think that you might be right. Both of us picking up on something about Tom Hanks, within the same day.
He's not somebody that I mention every day. 

This does kind of remind me of, NotP, Ch 9, S788 (thanks to the search engine) where Seth talks about this type of thing, regarding an "Aunt Sarah".

https://findingseth.com/q/session:788+'aunt'/


I was actually going to start my list with Forest Gump, but then using IMDB, I came to realize that Tom Hanks, also played very many parts that were taken from "real life" human beings. I as result of that, I thought that these real life characters might make my analogy even better.

LarryH, also caught onto the "Forest Gump" idea as well, with his comments about reincarnation being "like a box of chocolates".

-jbseth

[Sena]

This does kind of remind me of, NotP, Ch 9, S788 (thanks to the search engine) where Seth talks about this type of thing, regarding an "Aunt Sarah".

jbseth, thanks for drawing my attention to the nice lady Aunt Sarah. This Seth chapter certainly gives us a startling insight into the true nature of reality:

"At the same time Aunt Sarah, unbeknown to you, might pick up a blue vase, one that you had just seen in your mind as belonging on a shelf in her living room. Touching the vase, your Aunt Sarah might think of the person who gave it to her, now on the other side of the continent. That person, perhaps thinking of buying a present for someone, might settle upon a vase in a flash of inspiration, or suddenly begin humming a song with the name "Sarah" in the title, or possibly even think of your aunt. If on the other hand any opposing associations existed anywhere along the line, the "chain" of association could be broken. The last lady might consider a vase, for example, but reject the idea. Because of the time element, it seems to you that the first episode caused the others, and that your first association concerning your aunt brought about the "following" events. The inner significances, however, the associations, existed all at once, to be tuned in to at any point of time. They had their reality basically apart from time, even though they appeared within it. Actually the three sets of events could easily occur to the three people at once, and if no normal communication happened no one would be the wiser. The inner tapestry of events deals with just this kind of association. Emotional intensities and significances compose the nature of events. In dreams you work with the kind of intensities involved, exploring multitudinous significances. These are like charged emotional patterns, formed of your own highly personal emotions and intents. Using such significances as yardsticks, you accept or reject probable events. You imprint the universe with your own significance, and using that as a focus you draw from it, or attract, those events that fit your unique purposes and needs. In doing so, to some extent you multiply the creative possibilities of the universe, forming from it a personal reality that would otherwise be absent, in those terms; and in so doing you also add in an immeasurable fashion to the reality of all other consciousness by increasing the bank of reality from which all consciousness draws." (from "The Nature of the Psyche: Its Human Expression (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/i4ViQ8C