The Three Dilemmas

[usmaak]

I got to the stuff in Seth Speaks that talks about the three dilemmas.  I sort of understand it, but mostly am just confused.

Does anyone know of a way to simplify it or of a resource that makes it easier to understand.  As usual, I only understand about 20% of what Seth says.

[jbseth]

Hi usmaak,

In what part of SS did you find this material.  Seth talks about the 3 dilemmas in TES2 or TES3 as I can recall but I want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing.

-jbseth

[Sena]

I got to the stuff in Seth Speaks that talks about the three dilemmas.  I sort of understand it, but mostly am just confused.

Does anyone know of a way to simplify it or of a resource that makes it easier to understand.  As usual, I only understand about 20% of what Seth says.

usmaak, thanks for bringing up this interesting topic. I have to say that until now, I had not paid much attention to the three dilemmas. The main reference is in TES3. This is what I found in Seth Speaks:

"Peter three times denied the Lord (Matthew 26), saying he did not know him, because he recognized that that person was not Christ. The plea, "Peter, why hast thou forsaken me?" came from the man who believed he was Christ — the drugged version. Judas pointed out that man. He knew of the conspiracy, and feared that the real Christ would be captured. Therefore he handed over to the authorities a man known to be a self-styled messiah — to save, not destroy, the life of the historical Christ. (10:05. Jane's pace had speeded up considerably by now.) Symbolically, however, the crucifixion idea itself embodied deep dilemmas and meanings of the human psyche, and so the Crucifixion per se became a far greater reality than the actual physical events that occurred at the time." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

https://amzn.eu/5bz5kIp

This is what I found in TES3:

"These three dilemmas represent three areas of reality within which inner reality, or inner vitality, can experience itself. And here we have also the reason, or one of the reasons why, inner vitality can never achieve complete materialization. The very action involved in vitality's attempt to materialize itself adds to the inner dimension of inner vitality. Action basically can never complete itself. Inner vitality, materializing in any form whatsoever, at once multiplies the possibilities of further materialization. At the same time, because inner vitality is self-generating, only a minute fraction of inner vitality is needed to seed a whole universe." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 3 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

https://amzn.eu/cKBP0Lc

I admit that I don't really understand what Seth is saying here. Maybe this is an "esoteric" topic, meaning that we in physical reality have difficulty in understanding it.

This part of Seth's teaching may come under ther category of "Western esotericism":

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

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Usmaak, I  really cant give you a much more definitive answer either. Some things Seth has said I've pondered on for years. Looks like this one will be one of those for me. Other than, I think a broader explanation might well be found in The Early Sessions,  Vol's  1, 2 , and 3.
Which oddly enough I've started reading.  If I'm not mistaken,  and I well could be, I think the 3 dilemmas are referencing how matter comes into physical actualization in this 3rd dimension. The process of it.

Hi Jbseth,
I pulled up the 3 dilemmas via the Seth search engine 
Robs notes does reference the TES books. Vol 2&3. I'm including vol 1 as I think it gives background and context

[usmaak]

Hi usmaak,

In what part of SS did you find this material.  Seth talks about the 3 dilemmas in TES2 or TES3 as I can recall but I want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing.

-jbseth

The material on the three dilemmas starts on page 257 and ends on page 259.  I'm using the Kindle version and I don't know if the pages match up with the paperback.  It's in chapter 16.

So much of what I read in the Seth material goes directly over my head.  I promised myself that this time through, I would really strive to understand what I was reading.

[jbseth]

I got to the stuff in Seth Speaks that talks about the three dilemmas.  I sort of understand it, but mostly am just confused.

Does anyone know of a way to simplify it or of a resource that makes it easier to understand.  As usual, I only understand about 20% of what Seth says.

Hi usmaak, Hi All,

I was initially caught off guard when you mentioned the 3 Dilemma's in "Seth Speaks". I didn't recall ever reading about this topic in "Seth Speaks" and then afterward I came to believe that you probably meant, "The Seth Material".  Jane does talk about this topic in Chapter 16 of her book, "The Seth Material".

To be honest, what Jane says about this this topic in Chapter 16 of "The Seth Material" is pretty difficult to understand. In fact, what Seth also says about this topic in the TES3 book is also fairly complicated and it is somewhat esoteric as Sena mentioned above.

Given this though, as I understand it, I think that this topic underlies the real basis behind many of Seth's topics including "All-That-Is", the vitality that's exists behind all realities and his gestalts of consciousness ideas.

I think that Jane would have been better off by starting out with a description of "Action" and then working up to the 3 delimma's.

Instead she started out by talking about "Identity", which is exactly what Seth does in S138. However, in sessions S136 and S137, Seth talks about action and this rather complicated topic, is actually a little more straight forward, in the TES3 book if you start at S136 or so.  It is still fairly complex however.

Here's some information from TES3, S138, that might help some, in trying to figure what Seth was talking about here:

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

Here's an analogy that I sometimes use when I think about all of this. 

Imagine that you're standing on a street in some big city and while standing there your mind is empty and you have no specific thoughts about anything. 

Suddenly, the man standing next to you, takes out his wallet, pulls out a 5 dollar bill, hands it to you and you take it.   As a result of this "action" you suddenly identify yourself as a person with a 5 dollar bill.  This is the first dilemma. As a result of action, an identity was formed.

As a result of this, you stand there and recognize that you now have an identity. A person with a 5 dollar bill.  As you stand there and contemplate this, you realize that as long have you can have some stability, and no more action occurs, you will be a person with a 5 dollar bill. This is conscious of self. However this isn't ego consciousness.

But action won't be put off and it will express itself. 

Because of this, while you're standing there contemplating this, a poor man sees you holding this 5 dollar bill and he asks you if he can have it and so you give it to him.  As a result of this new "action" you now have a new identity. You are no longer a person with a 5 dollar bill. Instead, you are now a person who doesn't have the 5 dollar bill. This is also conscious of self but again it isn't ego consciousness.

Now, as you stand there and contemplate all of this, you come to believe that "you" are not just a part of this action, instead you are completely separate and independent of it.
After all, it was "you" who accepted the 5 dollar bill and it was also "you" who gave it to the poor man. All of this action was initiated by "you". This is the third dilemma. You are now the ego consciousness that exists independent of the action. In fact "you" believe that it was "you" who initiated this action.

-jbseth

[usmaak]

I was initially caught off guard when you mentioned the 3 Dilemma's in "Seth Speaks". I didn't recall ever reading about this topic in "Seth Speaks" and then afterward I came to believe that you probably meant, "The Seth Material".  Jane does talk about this topic in Chapter 16 of her book, "The Seth Material".

Thanks.  I have been mixing up the books in my head.

[Deb]

Linda Madden Dahl often has ways of explaining Seth stuff that make it easier... you might take a look here and see if there's any clarity. "Dilemmas" is mentioned 24 times in the link. Supposedly she also has an explanation in one of her books. I'll take a look tomorrow to see if I can pinpoint something. http://seth-material.blogspot.com/2010/07/seth-talk.html It's something that has come up a few times on this forum as well.

[usmaak]

Linda Madden Dahl often has ways of explaining Seth stuff that make it easier... you might take a look here and see if there's any clarity. "Dilemmas" is mentioned 24 times in the link. Supposedly she also has an explanation in one of her books. I'll take a look tomorrow to see if I can pinpoint something. http://seth-material.blogspot.com/2010/07/seth-talk.html It's something that has come up a few times on this forum as well.

I forgot all about those books.  I have the first three of them on Kindle. The information on the three creative dilemmas starts on page 26 of the Kindle version.  It's in chapter 2.

[jbseth]

Linda Madden Dahl often has ways of explaining Seth stuff that make it easier... you might take a look here and see if there's any clarity.

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Thanks Deb, for that great reminder. I've always found Lynda's writings on Seth's idea's to be really well written and very clear.  I don't have any of her books, but it would be interesting to know what she says about this topic.

-jbseth

[Deb]

I forgot all about those books.  I have the first three of them on Kindle. The information on the three creative dilemmas starts on page 26 of the Kindle version.  It's in chapter 2.

Chapter 2, Living a Safe Universe. Thanks, I only have the books in print so if you find out anything enlightening, can you copy & paste here? Otherwise I'll end up typing the 4-5 pages by hand. 

[usmaak]

I forgot all about those books.  I have the first three of them on Kindle. The information on the three creative dilemmas starts on page 26 of the Kindle version.  It's in chapter 2.

Chapter 2, Living a Safe Universe. Thanks, I only have the books in print so if you find out anything enlightening, can you copy & paste here? Otherwise I'll end up typing the 4-5 pages by hand. 

Do not do that!

I will copy/paste when I get home.

[Sena]

I forgot all about those books.  I have the first three of them on Kindle. The information on the three creative dilemmas starts on page 26 of the Kindle version.  It's in chapter 2.

Chapter 2, Living a Safe Universe. Thanks, I only have the books in print so if you find out anything enlightening, can you copy & paste here? Otherwise I'll end up typing the 4-5 pages by hand. 

Deb, thanks for reminding us of this. Lynda to the rescue!!:

"The Three Creative Dilemmas of All That Is

To explain all this further, Seth talks about three creative dilemmas which occur because of the constant need of All That Is to keep creation happening, or said another way, to keep action happening, because creation and action are one. And while this won't seem so obvious at first, the dilemmas are the birthplace of everything, which is why they're so important to us and our trek through the creation process.

The first creative dilemma is actually what we've already talked about. Here's how Seth words it: "The first creative dilemma is that which exists when inner vitality struggles to completely materialize, though it cannot completely materialize."

This constant struggle results in action. But this struggle is not only the birth of action, it's the birth of identities. Seth says, "An identity is also a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action upon itself; and through this interweaving of action with itself, an identity is formed."

Yet, although identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated. So, an identity is action. And what identities are Seth talking about? He's saying any identity that ever comes into being starts here. Nowhere in the greatest stretches of All That Is, expressed and not expressed, is there a mechanism other than action which creates identities. And that becomes a key factor when we later start talking about ourselves and our personal realities, and it brings great clarity to those subjects.

Every identity starts existence right here during the first creative dilemma, lovingly created and safely supported by All That Is.

The second creative dilemma, interestingly, teaches us about the beginnings of consciousness of self. Seth says the second dilemma occurs because identity, because of its characteristics, continually seeks stability, while stability is impossible. And he adds, "It is this dilemma, precisely between identity's constant attempts to maintain stability, and action's inherent drive for change, that results in the imbalance, the exquisite creative by-product that is consciousness of self."

So, the second dilemma brings consciousness of self into this process. Entities (which we'll talk about in a later chapter) are formed from this stage of the three dilemmas. They are the conscious portion of identities, gestalt patterns of perception by which action knows itself. And entities constantly change, because each action causes another action, which causes change.

The third creative dilemma described by Seth is when consciousness of self, created in the second dilemma, attempts to separate itself from action, resulting in a state of ego." (from "Living a Safe Universe: A Book for Seth Readers" by Lynda Madden Dahl)

https://amzn.eu/gO9zYuj

[Sena]

Lynda offers even further clarification, which I am placing in a separate post:

"Reviewing the Three Creative Dilemmas

(1)The first dilemma is when the inner vitality of All That Is struggles to completely materialize, but it can't completely materialize, and that attempt results in action and then identities, and they are integrated and inseparable. And each action terminates the previous action, it does not build upon it, which means an identity is also terminated with each action, and re-created with each "subsequent" action.

(2)The second dilemma happens because identity constantly attempts to maintain stability, but action, which is always integrated with identity, has an inherent drive for change; and that imbalance between the two results in what Seth calls "the exquisite creative by-product which is consciousness of self."

(3)The third dilemma is when consciousness of self attempts to separate itself from action and see itself, and everything else around it, as objects, resulting in a state of ego." (from "Living a Safe Universe: A Book for Seth Readers" by Lynda Madden Dahl)

" * A thought is action, as is a dream.

* Action is a part of any reality, and at the same time a by-product of reality.

* Each action creates a new reality. * Action materializes in all camouflage forms.

* Since each action terminates the previous action, linear time is simply our brain's perception of continuous action slowed down and drawn out.

This is it, folks. This is how and why creation happens. And nothing happens outside these three dilemmas, because the dilemmas constitute how All That Is lovingly creates. First action, then identities, then consciousness of self, then realities, then objects—everything happens right here. And accepting the fact we are not primarily human consciousness in linear time, but wholly non-physical consciousness within All That Is in subjective time, changes the ground rules completely, because we know where we start and how and why we create. We know all consciousness creates the same way, because it is the way All That Is creates." (from "Living a Safe Universe: A Book for Seth Readers" by Lynda Madden Dahl)

"Our Relationship With Our Inner Self

Okay, before we go on with our discussion of the inner self, we need to be really clear we're still talking about the whole; that the inner self and personality are simply the entity doing its thing through different focuses. The creative abilities of the inner self and personality are the creative abilities of the entity (which, don't forget, are the creative abilities of All That Is, as expressed in the three dilemmas)." (from "Living a Safe Universe: A Book for Seth Readers" by Lynda Madden Dahl)

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Wow Sena, Thanks for posting all of this Lynda Dahl information. 

That was great. Lynda sure has a great was of seeing Seth's information.


The specific topic of the "Consciousness of Self" has always been intriguing to me.

For me, I've always wondered exactly what Seth meant by this term. Is it the consciousness of a CU units or perhaps that of a nail, for example? Is it also perhaps some part of us, such as the consciousness of the cells in our body for example? Does it perhaps reside in all consciousnesses, from the CU units, all the way up to "All-That-Is"?

I do understand how it's different from than the "ego consciousness". I'm just not exactly sure how / where it actually shows up.

-jbseth

[leidl]

Thanks to Sena for those snippets from Dahl.  Contemplating the earlier posts in the thread, I didn't see how I was ever going to get clear insight on this topic! 

jbseth, regarding what Seth means by "consciousness of self," I agree, he's not talking about ego consciousness. 

The self IS consciousness, right?  So consciousness of the self, is consciousness of consciousness.  Awareness of being aware. 

If I sit quietly, and ask myself "am I aware?"  I know that I am.  How do I know it?  I'm aware of it.  I'm aware of being aware.  I am consciousness aware of itself as consciousness. 

On one hand, Seth's idea of the three dilemmas is helpful, because he sees his job as showing us that our human self-conception is too limited. 

"...you must give up some of your precious misconceptions. The misconceptions are these, and they apply to each of you: 1). "I am a limited self." For no matter what I tell you, you still seem to fear as if you are limited and as if your self is something within your head bounded by your bony skull, and enclosed within your physical body. This is an erroneous conception. 2). The belief that you are limited in energy and that you are inferior, and that you are helpless. As long as you believe you are helpless, you are helpless. As long as you believe you are limited, you are limited. These misconceptions are what inhibit you from using the energy that is your own."
—TECS2 ESP Class Session, February 3, 1970

By showing us that consciousness is creative action, endlessly forming identities and realities, he shakes us free of our limiting beliefs. 

But.... if we focus super-hard on getting these difficult concepts (which are just metaphors), what we're doing is creating a construction and understanding that construction.  To really understand what the self is, we have to directly experience the multi-dimensional self, rather than our concepts describing it.  Getting the three dilemmas is not the same as self-realization.  Seth's concepts make the worthy point that we are more than we think we are.  But we should not confuse understanding the concept with true self-knowledge, true awareness of the self as an aspect of infinite awareness. 

If you want to know what a strawberry is, listening to botanists and chefs and physicists describe a strawberry will give you some interesting concepts.  Your prior concepts will be expanded, and that is good!  But those concepts are a far cry from going out to your garden, plucking a berry off a plant and feeling the subtle vibration of the hull popping out of the sun-warmed berry.  Concepts are nothing compared with putting the berry in your mouth, tasting its indescribable flavor and sweetness.  Feeling the sticky juice on your fingers, and smelling its lingering perfume. 

I think we get closer to genuine understanding by doing the hard work of the exercises.

[jbseth]

Hi leidl, Hi All,

leidl, are you trying to say that I could read all about these concepts in the various Seth books and try to figure them out based upon what Seth said in these books,

or,

I could also just quiet myself, and using psychological time, tune into myself and see what comes up for me about these concepts from the intuitions that come to me from my whole self, my inner self or my entity instead? 

I really like that idea.


-jbseth

[Sena]

The specific topic of the "Consciousness of Self" has always been intriguing to me.

For me, I've always wondered exactly what Seth meant by this term. Is it the consciousness of a CU units or perhaps that of a nail, for example?

jbseth, "consciousness of self" is one of the greatest conundrums facing philosophy. Basically, philosophy cannot explain it, but Seth has given a fairly convincing explanation.

"Human beings are conscious not only of the world around them but also of themselves: their activities, their bodies, and their mental lives. They are, that is, self-conscious (or, equivalently, self-aware). Self-consciousness can be understood as an awareness of oneself. But a self-conscious subject is not just aware of something that merely happens to be themselves, as one is if one sees an old photograph without realising that it is of oneself. Rather a self-conscious subject is aware of themselves as themselves; it is manifest to them that they themselves are the object of awareness. Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words "I", "me", and "my", terms that each of us uses to refer to ourselves as such."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-consciousness/

Artificial intelligence can never produce consciousness of self.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01535/full

[Sena]

On one hand, Seth's idea of the three dilemmas is helpful, because he sees his job as showing us that our human self-conception is too limited.

leidl, thanks for your comments. It seems to me that the terrific insight Seth has given us is linking consciousness of self to All That Is. The only way we could have consciousness of self is by participating in the consciousness of All That Is. Philosophers who deny the reality of All That Is cannot explain consciousness of self. Christian theologians and other monotheists cannot explain it either. For them, human consciousness is "separate" from the consciousness of "God".

The corresponding teaching in Vedanta is that Brahman and Atman are one, but Seth (and Lynda) explain it more clearly.

https://www.world-religions-professor.com/atman-brahman.html

[jbseth]

Hi  All,

Much of the information that Jane wrote about the 3 dilemmas in "The Seth Material" came from Session 138. Last night I read through several of the sessions that follow this session in TES3.

There were several places within these sessions where Seth seemed to be associating the term "consciousness of self" with the inner self. I don't know for sure if this is what he really meant by this term, "consciousness of self" but it does seem to be a reasonable fit.

Below is just an overview of several of the sessions that follow S138.




In S139, Seth talks again about Action. He also talks about "thoughts" and how thought is action and how a thought must terminate before another can appear. Then he says the following which seems to suggest that "consciousness of self" is related to the "inner Self" and Ego consciousness is related to the Ego.

While so materialized, action is aware of itself in two basic ways: through its innate comprehension of itself, and through a secondary, more limited but more focused perception of a self belonging to such a materialization. The innate comprehension of course involves us with the inner self. The secondary self belonging to the materialization gives us, within your field, the ego.


S140, Seth deals with a "psychtime" experiment that Jane became involved in and Seth spent this session talking to Rob about her experience of that experiment.

In S141, Seth goes back and talks about "Action" once again, but he ends up spending the majority of this session talking about consciousness, the self and ego.

In S142, Seth talks some more about Action, the self and value fulfillment.

In S143, Seth spends this session talking about a recent illness that Rob had. Seth also talks about the issues involved with "negative expectations" and how these can cause us to have problems. He also talks about the "Power of Joy" in our lives.

In S144, Seth again goes back and talks about "Action" once again. However, in this session, since they had a guest witness, a Mrs. Lorraine Shafer, Seth also spends some time talking about her reincarnational existences and how the members of her present family were related to and interacted with her in past reincarnational lives.

So far, this series, S139 – S44, seems to be typical of many of the sessions that occur in and throughout many of these TES book early sessions. The sessions generally will be on some main Seth topic, (such as the 3 dilemmas). However, intermixed within these sessions, there will be other sessions and half sessions that deal with other topics (S140, Janes psych time experience; S143, Rob's illness; S144, a guest witness, S144).

In S145, Seth again goes back and talks about "Action" once again but here he ties this in with Rob recent illness and the reasons behind it. He talks about how there is no evil, there is no evil action. He talks about how we don't blame the wind for the damage of a hurricane. He talks about Hatred and Love.

In S146, Seth starts talking about "Personality". He talks about how it is action. How it and the ego are not the same. How personality has strong connections with the inner self.

-jbseth

[Deb]

This has always been a difficult concept for me, I think mainly because of my definition of dilemma. My mind tells me dilemma means having to make a difficult choice between two or more unsavory options, and that didn't quite fit in with the "three dilemmas" as explained. I do tend to get hung up on words and personal definitions, but maybe Seth could have used a different word(s)? Such as dichotomies, conflicts or unattainable desires? But finally I found a definition that I can live with, thanks to Merriam-Webster, "a difficult or persistent problem."

Once I got past that, the three dilemmas deconstructed and solidified (for me) into one simple concept: All of reality is a result of ATI's impossible desire completely materialize, which resulted in actions and then identities. Those identities attempt to maintain their stability as definite and finite objects, but they cannot because there is constant change, nothing is static.

So, does that mean ATI can't completely materialize in our physical system? Or more likely, in any system at all? If so, why not? Why do identities attempt to maintain their stability? What happened to "no limitations" ? Although I have to admit, those would be the end of the story.

Awareness of being aware.

Or even simply awareness of being?

Concepts are nothing compared with putting the berry in your mouth, tasting its indescribable flavor and sweetness.  Feeling the sticky juice on your fingers, and smelling its lingering perfume.

Yes! This reminds me so much of Seth saying that scientists attempt to understand, by dissection. Such as this:

"But as you cannot find life by dissecting a frog, you cannot find this sort of distance by exploring space. When you dissect the frog you destroy that which you had been seeking."
—TES3 Session 135 February 24, 1965

[jbseth]

So, does that mean ATI can't completely materialize in our physical system? Or more likely, in any system at all? If so, why not?

Hi Deb, Hi All,

I believe the answers to your first two questions above are this.  ATI can't completely materialize in any system, our physical system or any other system.  And furthermore, the reason why ATI can't do this are given by Seth in TES3, S138:

Here's what Seth says about this in S138:


TES3, S138:
These three dilemmas represent three areas of reality within which inner reality, or inner vitality, can experience itself. And here we have also the reason, or one of the reasons why, inner vitality can never achieve complete materialization. The very action involved in vitality's attempt to materialize itself adds to the inner dimension of inner vitality.

Action basically can never complete itself. Inner vitality, materializing in any form whatsoever, at once multiplies the possibilities of further materialization. [...]

Inner vitality attempts therefore to materialize itself completely, and yet because of its very nature, with each materialization it increases itself, making the attempt impossible. [...]



-jbseth

[Sena]

Once I got past that, the three dilemmas deconstructed and solidified (for me) into one simple concept: All of reality is a result of ATI's impossible desire completely materialize, which resulted in actions and then identities. Those identities attempt to maintain their stability as definite and finite objects, but they cannot because there is constant change, nothing is static.

So, does that mean ATI can't completely materialize in our physical system? Or more likely, in any system at all? If so, why not? Why do identities attempt to maintain their stability? What happened to "no limitations" ? Although I have to admit, those would be the end of the story.

Deb, it seems to me that the issue here is the "omnipotence" of All That Is. The dilemma facing All That Is was "to act or not to act". By choosing to act, all other beings were created, but it seems that All That Is had to give up omnipotence:

"Good and evil then simply represented the birth of choices, initially in terms of survival, where earlier instinct alone had provided all that was needed. In deeper terms, there is still another meaning that mirrors all of those apparent divisions that occur as All That Is seemingly separates portions of itself from itself, scattering its omnipotence into new patterns of being that, in your terms, remember their source and look back to it longingly, while still glorying in the unique individuality that is their own."
—NoPR Chapter 12: Session 647, March 12, 1973

The view of Christian theology that their "God" could act and create and remain omnipotent is illogical and contradictory.

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

A quote from the Wikipedia article:

"1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency.
2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its creator.
3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the creator does not have absolute power."

[usmaak]

A quote from the Wikipedia article:

"1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency.
2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its creator.
3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the creator does not have absolute power."

But if a supposed creator chose to create and at any time can unchoose, then it still has absolute power and it's just playing a game.

It's funny.  As far as I got in ACIM, this was discussed a lot.  Not what I just said, but how we are separate from our creator.  Except it's not that we really are separate.  We are always a part of it.  We just choose to see it as separate.  Everyone realizes this eventually, and chooses to return home and be with God (ATI, Allah, whatever you choose to call it).

[LarryH]

But if a supposed creator chose to create and at any time can unchoose, then it still has absolute power and it's just playing a game.

This reminds me of a book that I read decades ago called The Game of God. In it, the author suggests that there was one thing that an "omnipotent" God could not do: experience not being God. So it played a game in which it spun off elements of itself that had varying degrees of the illusion of not being part of God. This way, God could experience through its creations such things as discovery, surprise, growth, renewal, relationship, struggle, challenge, etc.

[usmaak]

But if a supposed creator chose to create and at any time can unchoose, then it still has absolute power and it's just playing a game.

This reminds me of a book that I read decades ago called The Game of God. In it, the author suggests that there was one thing that an "omnipotent" God could not do: experience not being God. So it played a game in which it spun off elements of itself that had varying degrees of the illusion of not being part of God. This way, God could experience through its creations such things as discovery, surprise, growth, renewal, relationship, struggle, challenge, etc.

The premise sounds fascinating.
What happens at the end of the story?  Does God throw out the elements after it's satisfied itself?  Is it like a video game where once you shut off the computer, everything's gone?

[LarryH]

The premise sounds fascinating.
What happens at the end of the story?  Does God throw out the elements after it's satisfied itself?  Is it like a video game where once you shut off the computer, everything's gone?

Then presumably, we all get re-absorbed into realizing that we are God, and there is nothing but God, and then God says, "This is boring."

[usmaak]

The premise sounds fascinating.
What happens at the end of the story?  Does God throw out the elements after it's satisfied itself?  Is it like a video game where once you shut off the computer, everything's gone?

Then presumably, we all get re-absorbed into realizing that we are God, and there is nothing but God, and then God says, "This is boring."

It does sound boring.  I find my current life much more interesting than it would be if I just existed with no other purpose than existing.

[Sena]

But if a supposed creator chose to create and at any time can unchoose, then it still has absolute power and it's just playing a game.

I don't think All That Is can "unchoose". This is because every conscious being shares in the consciousness of All That Is, AND every being has free will. Every conscious being will have to agree if there is to be a move back to square one.

These ideas are completely heretical according to Christian theology, and anyone who holds these ideas is condemned to eternal damnation.

[usmaak]

But if a supposed creator chose to create and at any time can unchoose, then it still has absolute power and it's just playing a game.

I don't think All That Is can "unchoose". This is because every conscious being shares in the consciousness of All That Is, AND every being has free will. Every conscious being will have to agree if there is to be a move back to square one.

These ideas are completely heretical according to Christian theology, and anyone who holds these ideas is condemned to eternal damnation.

Christianity makes my inner being twitch like crazy.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

For me, one of the things that I've been trying to figure out, is what Seth meant by the term "conscious of self" especially in regards to ego, which I think I understand.
I've been looking for some place where he spells this out, much more clearly than he has so far, and I think I've found it. 

In S146, Seth tells us that "conscious of self" shows up for humans as personality, human personality.

Along with this, he also has some other interesting things to say about several other topics including ego and even death for example.

In the spoiler below, I'll post some of his comments in this section.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

-jbseth

[wadihicham]

Hi All,

Here is the way I understand the three dilemmas. Probably I'm wrong, but let's take it as a step toward a better understanding.

I take the three dilemmas to mean the three stages toward the illusion of an objective reality (illusion because objectivity cannot, by definition arise from subjectivity):

Being anthropomorphic, at first (in His terms) all that was thinking/dreaming. Then the dream turns lucid (an Action) - that's the first dilemma/stage toward materialization.

Identity is inherent with the totality of Action (lucid dream) which by nature is changing. So it's impossible to perfectly maintain an unchanging identity. (That would be the second stage/ dilemma).

Finally, conscious entities attempt to separate themselves from the dream, like turning a lucid dream into an OBE. Here (the illusion of) an ego self is created (that would be the third stage/dilemma).