Did Seth teach pantheism?

[LarryH]

Seth (Session 530): Now: Let me make this clear once again: Your present personality as you think of it is indeed "indelible", and continues after death to grow and develop.

If the me that I think of as me reincarnates, does that mean that in that other life, I have the same personality, as implied by that quote? It seems to me that this other incarnation would have its own personality. I can see maybe having the same continuing identity, but there would be so many other influences in another life that molds personality. There is a difference between identity and personality.

[Tob]

Thanks for your post. 

The statement 'your present personality as you think of it continues after death to grow and develop', means that 'your present personality as you think of it continues after death to grow and develop'. Not more and not less. Everything else is interpretation. No one knows what comes after physical death. We all can just make a few more or less plausible assumptions.

With a view to the issue of 'reincarnation', there is a core problem with the - necessary - loss or modification of memories and identities. This conundrum must be solved. Otherwise one cannot easily talk about 'reincarnation', even if a lot of money is being made with this concept.

"Reincarnation does not imply a recurring time system, nor does it imply an extension of time as it is normally considered. That is, reincarnation does not imply in a basic manner existence in one life after another, in your time of successive moments."
—TES6 Session 256 May 4, 1966

According to Jane Roberts in 'Adventures in Consciousness' there are probable 'You's. They may have the same life as 'You' do, up until a specific point beyond which the 'You's split and go their own way. Thus, different 'You's may have the same history (in life), but from the point of splitting onwards, they continue to develop as different personalities. People born in 1940 may have an identical history until 1980. From then on they are different personalities, though the memory of the first 40 years is identical. 'You's which have been born in 1840 instead of 1940 have no common overlap. They are genuine 'reincarnations' in the sense that they are other probable 'You's, living their lives at a time which has – from a linear perspective – nothing to do with your current lifetime (e.g. starting in 1940). She did support her ideas with several illustrations. I try to add two of them.


From:

Jane Roberts: 'Adventures in Consciousness', Chapter 13:  'The Source Self, The Focus Personality, Probabilities, and Reincarnation'

(...)

I was going to begin with the joking remark that probable events can only have a probable status— what else?— but in a way all events are probable. We just actualize some of these and call them physical. I think that we are creatures of incredible freedom, with immense resources from which we form our experience. We choose physical events, then, from all the pre-perceptions of which the unconscious is aware. And this choice never stops. We aren't locked into one series of happenings. At any time we can pick another line of development from all of the probabilities available to us. Recognition of this would relieve many people from feelings of powerlessness, and allow them to change their lives in a practical manner.

I believe that we do make such alterations often, even if we're not consciously aware of the mechanisms or reasons involved. In such a case, the new alternate probable actions happen on the living area, and the events that might have happened otherwise— the old ones— are discarded but still happening off the living area.

I think that this kind of process occurs often when we change direction in midstream, suddenly alter our circumstances, or seem to be so different from our usual self that this is noticeable to others. At first, such actions may amaze and confuse us. We may not understand what we have done, or even how we did it. Yet a careful examination of the facts will show us that our "new" course was always a probability in our experience, though we may not have regarded it as such.

The crossroads of our lives may involve quite real though invisible intersections, where probabilities meet at definite points in our time and space. They may act as escape hatches from conditions we may have chosen once but no longer accept, or now see as flawed. These probability points would be concentrations of energy formed unconsciously by us adjacent to our living areas. They would be created by intense desires and beliefs that we had entertained, but never chosen as physical events.

On the other hand, some may have been accepted (if not literally actualized) on a living area level at one time, and were then shunted aside, like a railroad car, off the main track. All desires and ideas are action. So these continue adjacent to our living, but form probable patterns all about us. Unconsciously, they will also be latent or inactive at the living area level.

To me, the richness of our experience can't be explained without accepting the existence of probable actions and events as a source for physical experience. The same applies to the experience of our species in general, and to the historic events of the centuries as we know them.

The probability points would represent exchanges between probability and living area actions. I've made two simple diagrams to show what would happen when we change our "line of probabilities" (see Diagrams 4 and 5 ).

Diagram 4 shows a focus personality at the midpoint of its living area. Behind it is a past of actualized events already chosen from probable ones bringing about its own probable future as per the choices that the focus personality has made this far in our terms of time. Following as it has gone, the focus personality would be continuing on with the main line development of the living area.

Instead, in Diagram 5, the focus personality chooses an alternate probability, and "brings it" into the living area, changing the living area at that point. The alternate probability, (2 ), drops down into the living area time spot and becomes "the future" instead of the one chosen earlier.

The part of the focus personality who had decided upon the living area probability as it existed before the decision follows through— but not on the living area. A new focus personality is created, a "probable one," projected into a different kind of reality with the same abilities and previous experience as existed up to the point when the decision was made. In other words, the probable focus personality (or probable self) has a given heritage. It, too, begins to choose from probabilities. The initial focus personality (or physically tuned self) keeps its identity, yet having made the decision to change probabilities, it becomes different than it would have been had it not made the choice.
We talk about the genes and the miracle of unique creatures never duplicated within the framework of biological intricacy. Probabilities provide a psychic and psychological counterpart, but a far more flexible one in which our consciousness has greater freedom of choice, yet a unique quality that gives individuality its indestructible focus at the same time. For no two individuals would be presented with the same set of probabilities, or even make such choices from the same point.

For that matter, reincarnation most likely involves probable existences in alternate living areas. Our life as we know it may be just one time focus in space among others."

(...)

---------------------------
The issues at stake are 'You-ness', 'Other-ness', 'I-am-ness', 'Identity', 'Personality', etc.

[Tob]

Please find attached the two diagrams of Jane Roberts (nos 4 and 5)

[Sena]

If the me that I think of as me reincarnates, does that mean that in that other life, I have the same personality, as implied by that quote?

Larry, I don't see it that way. One single personality has only one physical incarnation, because it learns all there is to learn in that incarnation. Every personality continues in non-physical reality as a part of the Entity.

[barrie]

If the me that I think of as me reincarnates, does that mean that in that other life, I have the same personality, as implied by that quote? It seems to me that this other incarnation would have its own personality. I can see maybe having the same continuing identity, but there would be so many other influences in another life that molds personality. There is a difference between identity and personality.

The you who you think of as you will reincarnate--and be another person--altho there will still be connections--and things about you will exist in the subconscious of the "new" person. And, meanwhile, the you who you think you are will still learn and develop--but not on the physical plane.

[Tob]

Please find attached the two diagrams of Jane Roberts (nos 4 and 5)

According to Bashar you are re-creating your universe at the rate of Planck time. This means 10 to the power of 43 times per second. Thus you are creating your own individualized version of your universe 10 to the power of 43 times per second, times 3600 (hour), times 24, times 365, times 80 (years). This is an incredible, but nevertheless finite number of 'now moments' which are experienced individually with your 'I' identity. These moments are usually experienced in linear form (drugs aside). You call it your physical 'life'. At the moment of death you undergo what is called a 'life review'. This implies that you give up your linear perspective, and you see all the 'now moments' present at the same 'time' for the sake of evaluating your life and your decisions. All these now moments exist forever, as well as everything else that ever was, is, or will be. Everything does exist in the 'Now'. ('Spacious present' in Seth's terminology).

These individualized 'now moments' and the specific, individualized experiences they are transporting are what creation is about. THIS is creation, not the 3d camouflage reality. The 3d camouflage reality is the instrument creation has for generating specific, individualized life experiences which are – without exception - worthy, permanent and which will never be annihilated. The purpose of creation is to create and add, not to annihilate. And as a re-assurance principle (against inadvertent annihilation) creation makes use of the holographic principle. Thus, nothing which has ever been created can become lost. In case it would neverthelsess be inadvertently forgotten or annihilated (which cannot happen anyway according to Seth), the information would always be present and available again. Forever. Because of the holographic character of existence.

The 'You' you know yourself to be, or you think you know yourself to be, has ONE single physical life. At the end of your physical life you die, you re-evaluate your life (the incredible amount of 'now' - moments, and then you continue. You will continue forever because you are an indestructible 'I' - aspect of 'All-that-is'. You have done your job on our current plane and then you continue. Neither Seth nor Bashar are clear what exactly comes after death. According to Bashar the options we have and the decisions we could make cannot be explained to us at the current moment. We would not understand it. Both concur that you will have more options, more freedom, and more opportunities than you can think of now.

The 'You' you are now (know yourself to be, think yourself to be, hope to know yourself to be, etc...) has been born at the beginning of an individualized timeline (e.g. beginning in 1960), with the 'I'-identity of your entity of which you are a part. From then on this 'I'-identity is formed and transformed by life events and is changing its character. At the age of 40 you will normally have managed to integrate the 'I' identity of the 10 years old you that you were 30 years earlier, but you are not longer that 10 years old, and you know it (drugs aside). The 'I'-identity of the 10 years old has become part of the more advanced and developed 'You' that you are now.

At the point of death you will have lived a unique and highly individualized life, which will never be lived again by anybody else. This is your unique contribution to creation. And from then on you will continue in another context. You will continue to learn and to have experiences which you will assimilate and integrate. Finally you will end up with your own 'I'-identity at the level of 'All-that-is' and experience yourself as 'All-that-is'. (having integrated the 'identities'' and the now-moments of the 10 years old, the 40 years old, the 80 years old – point of death – the 100 'years' old, the 1000 'years' old, the 10 000 'years' old, etc. etc. having had unique and individualized experiences in other contexts which elude our 3d comprehension now.

You may have been born in 1940. After highschool and university you did apply for jobs. You did not really understand or know whether you were already sufficiently qualified for specific jobs and careers. One evening you saw an advertisement for something challenging, but attractive. Not quite sure whether you were skilled enough, you drafted a letter for submitting your job application. After writing the letter you had a few beers and you were in a fantastic mood because of the letter you had just written and you decided to send it as early as possible the next day. Then you went to bed.

The next morning you read the advertisement again and suddenly you had doubts as to whether you should send the letter. You understood that it was a job abroad that explicitly required good skills in a specific foreign language, which you didn't have. You began to feel insecure and did decide not to send the letter. Instead you concentrated on looking for other jobs or opportunities.

(The issue with the letter per se is a Seth example).

Thus you had reached a decision-making point where probabilities crossed. This is where the concept of probable lives and parallel realities comes in (Jane Roberts, Seth, Bashar). The 'You' you knew yourself to be thereafter did not send the letter, did not get this specific job, was not in need of improving language skills, and did never work abroad. But there is a version of you that did. And the splitting of the 'You's at the decision-making point implies that from the moment of the sending or not-sending of the letter there were TWO You's, which had an identical history up until that point in time. But - caused by - the decision to either send the letter of not there were suddenly two You's, and no longer one. This means two independent personalities, two individually developing identities, two different physical lives and two different timelines. And two different and entirely individual contributions to creation. You died at 67, the other person 10 years later.

You had your life review (the incredibly high number of 'now' moments and you did review parts of the life of the other 'you' as well, because it was somehow relevant for the theme you had chosen in your own life. But you experienced the impression of the other life with your own 'I' identity. And the other 'You', when dying ten years later at the age of 77 does the same. And both 'You's continue to exist independently forever – in other contexts – as they are both parts of creation and they are both eternal, indestructible parts of 'All-that-is'. And they will both experience themselves one day as 'All-that-is', at the level of All-that-is, with their own specific 'I'-identity.

And from the moment of splitting onwards (the letter) they are producing two independent F1 realities, making use independently of the neutral reality production mechanism as explained by Seth. Their synapses are choosing different reality frames (NoPR, Seth) among all the available and possible reality frame options. The synapses of one of the two 'You's choose frames nos 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc. to create a specific F1 experience, (similar to a film projection), the synapses of the other person choose 6, 11, 16, 21, 26 for creating another F1 reality. In both cases probable alternatives are constantly being tested beforehand in dream time.

And in both cases the experiences generated are the individualized contribution to creation, i.e. CREATION itself. And none of the individual 'now'- moments which make up either of the two physical lives, is ever lost, forgotten, or even annihilated. In case of doubt the holographic principle serves as a re-assurance against inadvertent loss. And the reality production process at the interface between F2 and F1 is caused by CUs, transforming into EEu's, transforming into subatomic particles, transforming into atoms, transforming into molecules, transforming into cellular structures and everything else (Seth). Respectively, it is caused and generated by the 'Prime Radiant', which is a single 'particle', but pure consciousness, transforming into CUs, transforming into EEu's, transforming into subatomic particles, transforming into atoms, transforming into molecules, transforming into cellular structures and everything else (Bashar).

And everything is 'here and now'. Because there is only 'here and now'. Everything is just a matter of different vibrations.

[LarryH]

The you who you think of as you will reincarnate--and be another person--altho there will still be connections--and things about you will exist in the subconscious of the "new" person. And, meanwhile, the you who you think you are will still learn and develop--but not on the physical plane.

That seems contradictory. You are saying that "I" will reincarnate, but "I" will meanwhile also be in a non-physical plane. I guess in the sense of time being an illusion, I can be in both states of existence at once, but I have a hard time imagining where my sense of self is while I am both in the physical and in the non-physical.

[LarryH]

As Tob presents based on Bashar, we live only once. As Barrie presents based on Seth, we will reincarnate whether or not we believe we will. If I understand correctly, if we think of the oversoul as an orange, we can think of the segments of the orange as individual souls that each incarnate once in Tob's/Bashar's version. Each segment may view other segments as a reincarnation, though that connection is only via the common connection to the whole orange or oversoul. Alternatively, in the Barrie/Seth version, each segment may reincarnate multiple times, and incarnations of other segments of the orange would not be considered as reincarnations of one another. Does that analogy clearly state the differences in the two views?

[Tob]

As Tob presents based on Bashar, we live only once. As Barrie presents based on Seth, we will reincarnate whether or not we believe we will. If I understand correctly, if we think of the oversoul as an orange, we can think of the segments of the orange as individual souls that each incarnate once in Tob's/Bashar's version. Each segment may view other segments as a reincarnation, though that connection is only via the common connection to the whole orange or oversoul. Alternatively, in the Barrie/Seth version, each segment may reincarnate multiple times, and incarnations of other segments of the orange would not be considered as reincarnations of one another. Does that analogy clearly state the differences in the two views?

I am sure this is not so easy. One of the questions is what constitutes 'I-am-ness'. As opposed to 'You-ness', or 'Other-ness'. From reading Jane Robert's description in 'Adventures in Consciousness' I think there is not much difference between probable selves and reincarnational selves. Two probable selves usually don't know of each other. They are in different realities. There is a version of Robert Butts who died as a child and another one who died as a pilot. In the case of Dr. Pietra, who also seems to be another version of him, that person (in that other reality) seems to know that there is a parallel version of him here in our reality. But they did not manage to meet each other, as far as I understood the material.

I think reincarnational selves are probable selves that live in different timeframes which are sufficiently far apart (i.e. without obvious time overlaps causing logical problems) so that we tend to perceive their existence not as parallel, but as 'earlier' or 'later' in a consecutive sense. They can (and should) be nevertheless subsumed under the heading of probable lives, as Jane Roberts did. I would say reincarnational lives have per se not more to do with each other than other probable lives, e.g. Robert Butts the pilot and Robert Butts the text editor.

If we give up the idea of uniqueness and individuality, as it seems to be implied in the standard understanding of reincarnation (in a consecutive sense) the conundrum must be solved what happens to the former 'I'-identity (of the former life) and the respective memories which were generated so arduously during that specific lifetime.

For the time being I tend to 'hide' behind the formulations of Jane Roberts which I did post earlier (an excerpt from chapter 13 on probable selves and reincarnational selves in her 'Adventures...'–book, and the related two graphics. To me the text and the illustrations are very convincing.

[Tob]

As Tob presents based on Bashar, we live only once. As Barrie presents based on Seth, we will reincarnate whether or not we believe we will. If I understand correctly, if we think of the oversoul as an orange, we can think of the segments of the orange as individual souls that each incarnate once in Tob's/Bashar's version. Each segment may view other segments as a reincarnation, though that connection is only via the common connection to the whole orange or oversoul. Alternatively, in the Barrie/Seth version, each segment may reincarnate multiple times, and incarnations of other segments of the orange would not be considered as reincarnations of one another. Does that analogy clearly state the differences in the two views?

I am sure this is not so easy. One of the questions is what constitutes 'I-am-ness'. As opposed to 'You-ness', or 'Other-ness'. From reading Jane Robert's description in 'Adventures in Consciousness' I think there is not much difference between probable selves and reincarnational selves. Two probable selves usually don't know of each other. They are in different realities. There is a version of Robert Butts who died as a child and another one who died as a pilot. In the case of Dr. Pietra, who also seems to be another version of him, that person (in that other reality) seems to know that there is a parallel version of him here in our reality. But they did not manage to meet each other, as far as I understood the material.

I think reincarnational selves are probable selves that live in different timeframes which are sufficiently far apart (i.e. without obvious time overlaps causing logical problems) so that we tend to perceive their existence not as parallel, but as 'earlier' or 'later' in a consecutive sense. They can (and should) be nevertheless subsumed under the heading of probable lives, as Jane Roberts did. I would say reincarnational lives have per se not more to do with each other than other probable lives, e.g. Robert Butts the pilot and Robert Butts the text editor.

If we give up the idea of uniqueness and individuality, as it seems to be implied in the standard understanding of reincarnation (in a consecutive sense) the conundrum must be solved what happens to the former 'I'-identity (of the former life) and the respective memories which were generated so arduously during that specific lifetime.

For the time being I tend to 'hide' behind the formulations of Jane Roberts which I did post earlier (an excerpt from chapter 13 on probable selves and reincarnational selves in her 'Adventures...'–book, and the related two graphics. To me the text and the illustrations are very convincing.

Seth: "(With emphasis:) Reincarnation simply represents probabilities in a time context (underlined) — portions of the self that are materialized in historical contexts. Period. All kinds of time — backward and forward — emerge from the basic unpredictable nature of consciousness, and are due to "series" of significances. Each self bom in time will then pursue its own probable realities from that standpoint." (session 683)

[LarryH]

I guess I can accept the idea that every probable "me", whether offshoots within a given incarnation or other incarnations and all their offshoots are all "me", with separate paths of development. I wonder at what level, if any, do all of these "me's" come together as a gestalt "me"? Perhaps it is at the life review, at least for the probable versions from that life. I would imagine that this would happen at the oversoul level, but I wonder if it happens "below" that, at the "me" level? Perhaps my various "me's" are able to experience the oversoul consciousness while maintaining our separate paths of development, or at least some expanded sense of "me"-ness that includes all the probable self memories and incarnations.

[Tob]

I guess I can accept the idea that every probable "me", whether offshoots within a given incarnation or other incarnations and all their offshoots are all "me", with separate paths of development. I wonder at what level, if any, do all of these "me's" come together as a gestalt "me"? Perhaps it is at the life review, at least for the probable versions from that life. I would imagine that this would happen at the oversoul level, but I wonder if it happens "below" that, at the "me" level? Perhaps my various "me's" are able to experience the oversoul consciousness while maintaining our separate paths of development, or at least some expanded sense of "me"-ness that includes all the probable self memories and incarnations.

This is a Seth Forum, so I will not overly rely on other sources. According to Bashar we create and re-create our own reality, our own universe at the rate of Planck time. Our universe constantly collapses to a zero point before it is re-created again. During that time we make new connections to everything else in All-that-is, i.e.: to the rest of creation. We do that via the oversoul. We are all part of All-that-is and once this regular information exchange has taken place we are a new part of All-that-is with new connections to the rest of creation. Basically, as part of All-that-is we are an informational nodal point.

In addition, Bashar is often referring to the concept of Indra's net. You can google the term. You will find pictures of structures which look like curtains of pearls. The idea is that every single pearl represents one single incarnation. If you put a black dot on one of them it is automatically and immediately reflected by all the other pearls. And vice versa. It means that whatever you do in one incarnation is immediately known by all your other selves. An ancient way to deal with the holographic principle. In the Seth teachings you find the island analogy (UR) and the concept of the constant cross-fertilization.

I assume during the process of re-connecting to the rest of creation you are also connecting more specifically to your other 'me's. Most of them, if not all, should be part of your oversoul.

[Bora137]

I see it like the soul is a balloon. From within the balloon a 'finger' pushes outwards creating a point of focus into another reality - this is an incarnation. When the physical incarnation dies the point of focus retracts. But the bulge although retracted and albeit shriveled remains on the outer skin of the soul-ballon. Incarnations are just various roles taken by the 'i'/me/ the soul. The I/me/soul might say I remember when I was a German police officer or remember when I was a lauded aboriginal hunter of great skill. These are in many ways costumes put on, though they contain energy and very importantly 'the entirety of the soul', so do continue and grow if that is their desire.

[barrie]

That seems contradictory. You are saying that "I" will reincarnate, but "I" will meanwhile also be in a non-physical plane. I guess in the sense of time being an illusion, I can be in both states of existence at once, but I have a hard time imagining where my sense of self is while I am both in the physical and in the non-physical.

Lar, We are ALWAYS in both states at once all the time. While alive right now this moment as you read these words, you (me and everyone) flicker or blink in and out of the physical realm each instant--so fast that our five senses don't notice.

But we are always in F2. It is during these "blinking off" states that we make all of our telepathic agreements and explore all probable realities as to what may probably happen if we make one choice over the other--and then pop back into the linear time moment to physically make the choice.

While we are "blinked off" we explore ALL the probable ramifications of a decision to be made. We can explore 20 years of just one of infinite probabilities--it all occurs outside of linear time--and then we blink back into the F1 moment and make our choice. To our physical senses, it seems like nothing has happened. No flickering, no explorations.

So, while we believe and it seems to our five senses that we are continuously in physical reality--we are actually constantly flickering or blinking in-and-out of our "home base," so to speak, of F2.

To use an analogy: When we eat pizza in a pizza place, we have one foot in F1 and one foot in F2.

[barrie]

I see it like the soul is a balloon. From within the balloon a 'finger' pushes outwards creating a point of focus into another reality - this is an incarnation. When the physical incarnation dies the point of focus retracts.

Hi Bora, I like this analogy, but would like to add one thing: When we retract into the soul balloon, we don't get swallowed up by the soul, or become simply a part of all the "air" already in the balloon. We keep our personality after we retract.

To expand on your analogy: The balloon is filled with air and little beads. When the "finger" is pushed outward creating a point of focus in linear time--a little bead is contained in what is pushed out. And that is "you" and you learn and expand and explore your focal consciousness and it all goes in the little bead as well as to the whole soul. And then, when you die or retract, the little bead remains intact with all it has learned--but now also expand further to include the soul awareness, so to speak.

Seth (ESP Class, 5-18-71):  "Now each of you is a part of All That Is, highly individual and unique, like no other, and that like no other-ness will never be taken from you. You will not melt into some great golden bliss in which your characteristics will disappear. You will not be gobbled by a super-god. On the other hand you will continue to exist, you will continue to be responsible for the way in which you use energy, you will expand in ways now impossible for you to understand. You will learn to command energy of which you now do not know. You will realize that you are more than you realize that you are now, but you will not lose the state of which you are now aware, and regardless of the fact of reincarnation and regardless of probable selves the unique self that you now call yourself has eternal validity even though the memories that you cannot now consciously recall will be yours in their entirety; and physical life in its reincarnational self is not some chaos thrust upon you, some evil from which you must shortly hope to escape. It is a particular reality in which you have chosen to know your existence, in which you have chosen to develop yourself, and it is indeed a system, again, like no other system, a unique and dear and beloved portion of reality in which you have decided to flourish for a while. And in denying it, again, you deny the reality of experience.

"In other terms, you will leave this system for others, but there will be a portion of you yet, no matter how many eons pass, that remembers a spring evening and a smell of autumn air; and those things will always be with you when you want them. You make your own flesh and your own world as now en mass you form the evening. These are creations of yours and of your kind. They are not prisons to be escaped from."

...................... 

Seth (ESP Class, 3-17-70): "Let me emphasize again that in any terms of which you can conceive of a god, such a god is not static. And as soon as you say, 'God is this' or 'God is that,' god is already entity is that,' it is already something more. You cannot keep track of your own thoughts; why do you think you can keep track of your entity or of a god? Even your thoughts are created and they affect realities of which you do not know. Your thoughts have electromagnetic realities in dimensions that you do not even perceive. Your dreams are realities in dimensions that you do not now perceive. Your entities have realities and dimensions that you do not perceive. The gods not only have surprises for you, but you have surprises for the gods and it can be no other way...

"You are already a part of All That Is, and you cannot disentangle yourself from that reality. There is no nirvana if you mean by nirvana a state in which your individuality is lost and gobbled in a great fish of a god that consumes you as the whale consumed Jonah.

"Instead you see, your individuality is used and developed. For your individuality means that there is one more highly unique, original way by which consciousness can express itself. And to lose that individuality, my dear friend, would mean that god had lost one of his voices, and that god had become deaf in one way and that one tone was forever lost."

------------------------ 

Seth (ESP Class, 1-22-74): "God must love individuals since he made so many of them!"

Class Member Asked: "Where did that quote come from?"

Seth Responded: "That is a bastard quote! It is part from me and part from someone else! But in the glorification and realization of your own individuality, do you therefore know what God is. For God manifests himself through what you are. And if he wanted always to be one, and not individualistic, then he would have remained latent and never materialized in individual form.

"In certain terms, these glasses are a manifestation of what God is, as you are a manifestation of what God is. And through understanding the infinite validity of your own individuality, do you therefore glorify All That Is, and to the extent that you deny your individuality, do you deny what God is. If God wanted to be a nebulous, psychological cloud of non-being, so would he be. You cannot find God by denying the vitality of your being. You cannot find Him by trying to hide in a Nirvana, by trying to bury your individuality in a non-being."

Class Member: "What do you call a 'non-being'?"

Seth Responded: "When you try to hide your individuality, you are trying not to be. I did not call God a 'not-being'."

Class Member: "On that concept that is."

Seth:  "Indeed. Your eyes and your eyelashes, being individual, express the individuality of All That Is. No snowflake is alike. No person is alike. Through the manifestation of individuality does All That Is express its being. To be yourself you are, in your terms, what God is. And in your way, you become a conscious co-creator. You are co-creators whether you know it or not. You are creators whether you know it or not. You are created and you create whether you know it or not. You can learn to be conscious co-creators. You form your reality. You can do this consciously. Even when you choose to think in terms of a nebulous, beneficial, divine oneness in which you hope to hide your being, and lose it....

"But do not put your ideas of God, even though those ideas may now be fashionable, or liberal, in a package that is made half of Oriental philosophy and half of old Christian concepts that all result in the idea that you must lose your individuality in a Nirvana of spirit. For you find All That Is through the understanding, the joy, the compassion and the experience of your own individuality.
   
"You are a portion of what God is, and that God wants you to be you. So why, therefore, try to deny your you-ness and escape it? It can be – it can be – and I am not saying it is, but it can be a fashionable, spiritual cop-out that prevents you from denying certain portions of reality and allows you the luxury of denying your individuality by trying to find a "one-ness" that would annihilate the sacredness within you that is individual, and that is your contact with a God-head."

[barrie]

Our universe constantly collapses to a zero point before it is re-created again.

Hi Tob, Seth refers to this as we are constantly flickering or blinking in and out of F1 so fast that our senses don't notice. It is in the "off" states, outside of linear time--in F2 which we never leave--that we make our telepathic agreements and explore all the infinite probabilities when making our choices which seemingly always in F1.

[barrie]

As Tob presents based on Bashar, we live only once. As Barrie presents based on Seth, we will reincarnate whether or not we believe we will

Larry H Writes: As Tob presents based on Bashar, we live only once. As Barrie presents based on Seth, we will reincarnate whether or not we believe we will.

Barrie Comments: Everything is based on what Bashar means by "we only live once."

Here is Seth, CAPS added for emphasis only:

Seth (Session 539): "After death you will not concentrate upon the physical forms taken by time and events. You may use the same elements, as a painter might use his colors. Perhaps your life span runs for 75 years. After death you may, under certain conditions and if you choose, experience the events of those 75 years at your leisure--BUT NOT NECESSARILY in terms of continuity. You may alter the events. You can manipulate within that particular dimension of activity that represented your 75 years. If you find severe errors of judgement, you may then correct them. You may perfect, in other words, but you cannot again ENTER INTO THAT FRAME OF REFERENCE as a completely participating consciousness--nor, follow the historic trends of the time, joining into the mass-hallucinated existence that resulted from the applied consciousness of your self and you 'contemporaries.'"

[Deb]

That seems contradictory. You are saying that "I" will reincarnate, but "I" will meanwhile also be in a non-physical plane. I guess in the sense of time being an illusion, I can be in both states of existence at once, but I have a hard time imagining where my sense of self is while I am both in the physical and in the non-physical.

The way I see it is this "me" that I am currently in this life is only a small portion of my greater identity. Like my entity is dipping a toe (me) into the ocean. This me is focused in my current existence, and I don't have any knowledge or memories of my other existences or my greater identity. At least on a conscious level. Once this body dies and I return to the non-physical realm, I will be a conscious portion of my greater identity and will not only retain my memories and personality, but will have access to those of my other incarnations, probable selves, etc. Right now I'm little me (currently Deb 1.65), in F2 I'm BIG ME (Deb 2.0).

People who have had NDEs often talk about a feeling of expansiveness and intensity in the other realm. More vividly real and spectacular. They call it hyperreality or "realer than real." We are only experiencing a small part of true reality. We only have what we need to get our "jobs" done here. I'm sure that helps us maintain our focus.

I see it like the soul is a balloon. From within the balloon a 'finger' pushes outwards creating a point of focus into another reality - this is an incarnation. When the physical incarnation dies the point of focus retracts. But the bulge although retracted and albeit shriveled remains on the outer skin of the soul-ballon.

Yes, great visual! That's kind of the way I see it, the bigger part of us resides in F2, and our individual experiences in F1 are like the finger of the balloon dipping in and then retracting.

Hi Bora, I like this analogy, but would like to add one thing: When we retract into the soul balloon, we don't get swallowed up by the soul, or become simply a part of all the "air" already in the balloon. We keep our personality after we retract.

Yes, Seth has said that several times. It can be a hard thing for us to grasp because we don't really experience anything like that in our F1 existence. At least humans don't. I don't know about animals. I think of this as I'm still the "me" I've been since my birth. Maybe oversimplified, but I look back at the 5 year old me, the 12 year old me, the 18 year old me, etc. I don't look at those mes as being dead and gone, they are still a part of me right now. I've just matured, improved and had a lot of experiences. I retain a multitude of feelings and memories from all ages in this particular lifetime. Since I consider consciousness to be non-local, I feel I'll retain that the next realm.

Barrie Comments: Everything is based on what Bashar means by "we only live once."

I guess it comes down to definitions again. Which "we?" If he means this one instance of myself, here and now, I can accept that. I don't know if Bashar talks about a greater "we" such as an oversoul or entity, I'm really not that familiar with Bashar other than what others have mentioned here. Our entities send out portions of itself into F1, which are our identities (to us), to accomplish a variety of goals. I'd think to send out a portion a second time would be redundant when there are probable selves that could accomplish that in a single incarnation.

[LarryH]

The way I see it is this "me" that I am currently in this life is only a small portion of my greater identity.

I get that. What I am still confused about is whether the "me" of this life reincarnates or if it is just other parts of my greater identity that reincarnate. Refer back to the orange and segments of the orange analogy, my greater identity would be the orange, and the "me" of this life would be a segment. Earlier, I used the orange as the oversoul, but it works also to view it as my greater identity.

[barrie]

I get that. What I am still confused about is whether the "me" of this life reincarnates or if it is just other parts of my greater identity that reincarnate. Refer back to the orange and segments of the orange analogy, my greater identity would be the orange, and the "me" of this life would be a segment. Earlier, I used the orange as the oversoul, but it works also to view it as my greater identity.

Hi Larry, "Me" of this is life is a part of the greater identity, as you know. Each focal personality in any given time period is the "me" of that time period. To each one of THEM, YOU are one of their invisible past or future selves.

Don't over think this. Maybe this simple analogy will help. You have different roles in your life. Let's say father, brother, son, grandson, lover, salesman, bowler, friend out with the boys, etc.

They are ALL you--your expansive self, inner self, or whatever.

Each role is a different lifetime. You don't act or talk the same in each role. Talking to grandma you don't say things, curse or remember things that you do when your in the middle of making love. Your bowling role stares and focuses on those pins with the ball in your hand, has no memory in that moment of how you behave with your young child. And so forth.

Each role is another incarnation--is another "me" -- BUT they are still all YOU.

You most likely would not ask: Which is the real me? The bowler, lover, father?.

In the subconscious of each role, is the memories and/or egos of the other "you's" You can tap into these subconscious things if you want. They may appear in dreams or hypnosis, etc. Or fleeting images in the middle of the day that last but a moment.

In this analogy, your 2021 focal personality is the bowler. Your 1856 personality is the father. And your 2217 personality is the grandson.

I do NOT mean that you were a bowler in 2021 or a father in 1856. This IS an analogy--as to who the "me" is.

In this one life, you have different "minor me's" as you take on these various roles thru-out the week. The "me" of the grandson is not the "me" of the lover. But they are all you.

The same with our "roles" or lifetimes in various time periods.

And yes, your orange analogy holds up perfectly. Each orange segment is another focal personality in another time period--and they are all also still a part of the ONE orange (Oversoul) --and share the same juice (experiences--consciously in their now or in the afterdeath).

[Tob]

The way I see it is this "me" that I am currently in this life is only a small portion of my greater identity.

I get that. What I am still confused about is whether the "me" of this life reincarnates or if it is just other parts of my greater identity that reincarnate. Refer back to the orange and segments of the orange analogy, my greater identity would be the orange, and the "me" of this life would be a segment. Earlier, I used the orange as the oversoul, but it works also to view it as my greater identity.

Session 62: "Energy itself is continually new—event, and motion, and no particular pattern will suffice it for long. Energy is self-renewing, and indefinite duration of pattern would lead to dead ends. Energy always builds. Identity, again, is not dependent upon matter. Energy propels and carries along with it, its own traces. Identity, being independent of matter, is then not finished when the particular physical pattern is no longer created. Energy while being propulsive, is also retentive. It retains what you may call memory of previous gestalts. Capsule comprehension exists even in the smallest particle of energy, and even within the smallest particle of energy there exists all possibilities of development and creation.

A psychic gestalt is dependent upon matter, not for its identity but merely for its survival in the physical plane. Psychic gestalts or identities or individualities are for all practical purposes immortal. They may join other gestalts but they will never be less than they once were. Identity then is never broken down. Any apparent breaking down is never an actual fact, as the personality could be thought of as a breaking down of the entity; but this is not so. The personality did not exist as such before its creation by the entity, and once it becomes an identity, it retains that individuality. Earlier it was merely a possibility, as for example a painting that you may paint next year is now only a possibility."

I think Seth is rather operating with the concept of on onion and different layers than with an orange.

Session 512: "The self that you know is but one fragment of your entire identity. These fragment selves are not strung together, however, like beads of a string. They are more like the various skins of an onion, or segments of an orange, all connected through the one vitality and growing out into various realities while springing from the same source. I am not comparing personality to an orange or an onion, but I want to emphasize that as these things grow from within outward, so does each fragment of the entire self. You observe the outside aspect of objects. Your physical senses permit you to perceive the exterior forms to which you then react, but your physical senses to some extent force you to perceive reality in this manner, and the inside vitality within matter and form is not so apparent."

As far as I understand him at the present moment, the 'I-am-ness' you were when you were 10 years old on 8th December at 12:18 is contained in the 'I-am-ness' you were at 12:19 and that self-awareness is contained in the 'I-am-ness' you were at 12:20. And this process continues after death. Thus you can assimilate the experiences of other incarnations as well, but you do that with your own 'I'-identity, which is individual and unique. You are becoming more every moment of your life, and so does the initial entity as well. It always has a lead over you unless or until you leave it and form your own entity. But you are not hampered by the other incarnations, i.e. your 'I'-identity is not hampered by other incarnations. You integrate them. Like reading an additional book, or studying architecture after having been working for years as an accountant. You could still be working as an accountant and the accountant-self will not be annihilated by studying architecture in addition. In the same way you integrate other incarnations with your specific 'I'-identity.

The structure of an orange is definitely different from an onion. If creation is layered, the picture of an onion may be better. In principle it is an onion inside an orange.

[Caleb Murdock]

Who is this Bashar?  I have found all the talk about him to be a distraction.  I stopped seeking spiritual sources when I encountered Seth.  Seth had so much to say that I never read it all or felt that I needed to move on.

I remember reading some of the "Alexander material", which Rob Butts himself endorsed.  But Alexander didn't pass muster with me.  He sometimes sounded sarcastic and judgemental, attitudes that Seth never expressed, and the portions that I read didn't sound particularly original.

Seth said that a spirit can speak from any number of places, and that not every spirit who speaks through a channel has wisdom to convey.

[Caleb Murdock]

I get that. What I am still confused about is whether the "me" of this life reincarnates or if it is just other parts of my greater identity that reincarnate. Refer back to the orange and segments of the orange analogy, my greater identity would be the orange, and the "me" of this life would be a segment. Earlier, I used the orange as the oversoul, but it works also to view it as my greater identity.

Larry, both things may be true.  That, it would seem, is the nature of a gestalt, which is what we all are.  When you are awake, the dreaming self watches and to certain extent shares in your experiences.  And when you are dreaming, your waking self watches and shares in the dream experiences.

When you, Larry, reincarnate -- let's say as Sarah -- Sarah takes the lead and you watch, experience and learn along with Sarah.

It's like the human body.  The right arm and hand may dominate in some activities, while the left arm and hand dominate in others.  Yet, when the left hand is dominating, the right hand remains part of the body and partakes in the overall experience.  I am right-handed, but I have identified a whole bunch of activities in which my left hand takes charge.

Let me add another example:  I don't have the Seth text in front of me, but Seth's explanation of the consciousness of a rock is applicable.  Different areas of the rock have their own consciousness and identity, and then the entire rock has a consciousness and identity.  If one side of the rock gets a whack from something, that portion of the rock has a more direct experience than the rest of the rock, but all of the rock partakes in the experience.

[LarryH]

Thanks everybody for your responses. Now I have a different question: when I come to a decision point and both decisions are followed through, creating a new universe, that means that there is another "me" with a different future in that new probability. Seth talked about only two other probable Robs, though he was not necessarily saying that they were the only other probable Robs. There are those who say that moment by moment, we are creating new probabilities, which would mean that there is a virtually infinite number of "me's". Even if we assume that there are on average one key decision per year that causes a new probability, and each probable self continues to split once a year, that means that in 20 years, there would be 1,048,576 "me's", over a trillion "me's" after 40 years, etc. Do you think I would ever to be able to integrate all of those "me's" at a "greater self" level?

[Deb]

I supposedly have 30 trillion cells in my body that are well integrated. According to Seth, every cell has consciousness. Maybe oversimplified again, but that makes me think that yes, it will also work on the entity level.

[Tob]

Thanks everybody for your responses. Now I have a different question: when I come to a decision point and both decisions are followed through, creating a new universe, that means that there is another "me" with a different future in that new probability. Seth talked about only two other probable Robs, though he was not necessarily saying that they were the only other probable Robs. There are those who say that moment by moment, we are creating new probabilities, which would mean that there is a virtually infinite number of "me's". Even if we assume that there are on average one key decision per year that causes a new probability, and each probable self continues to split once a year, that means that in 20 years, there would be 1,048,576 "me's", over a trillion "me's" after 40 years, etc. Do you think I would ever to be able to integrate all of those "me's" at a "greater self" level?

"The you that you are can make any changes you want to in your experience: You can change probabilities for your own purposes, but you cannot change the courses of other probable selves that have gone their own ways. All probable selves are connected. [...] Each probable self has its own free will and uniqueness. You can change your own experience in the probability you know — which itself rides upon infinite other probabilities. You can bring into your own experience any number of probable events, but you cannot deny the probable experience of another portion of your reality."
—UR1 Section 2: Session 695 May 6, 1974

There is an infinite number of possibilities. The question is which of these possibilities becomes probable and under which circumstances. More precisely: What is the threshold of probability? According to Seth there is even an infinite number of probabilities (see above). The 'You' you know yourself to be, is 'just another' probable 'You' from the point of view of any other of the 'You's.

[Caleb Murdock]

I just want to make a point.  I wonder if we aren't taking too much from science fiction when we think of probable selves.  In science fiction shows, the people in probable universes always look exactly like the main characters.  Seth described something a little different.  Our probable selves may exist in universes (planes) that aren't exactly like ours, that have different natural laws.  Our probable selves may not be human beings quite as we know them, but look and act differently.  Furthermore, not every possible action must be played out in a probable universe.  Many of them are played out in our dreams.  Some of them are projected into other planes and played out there by other individuals (I'm pretty sure Seth gave that as an option).

The "threshold of probability" that Tob wonders about would be determined by the intensity of our feelings.  Thus, if you are facing two choices and you are emotionally invested in both, both of them may be played out in some reality; but if your thoughts are just fleeting, that won't happen.

[Sena]

More precisely: What is the threshold of probability?

Tob, thanks for opening another can of worms, as it were! I think this thread is getting over-loaded, and I hope you don't mind if I open a new thread for the "threshold for probabilities".

[Caleb Murdock]

I said something about that directly above.

[barrie]

Our probable selves may exist in universes (planes) that aren't exactly like ours, that have different natural laws.  Our probable selves may not be human beings quite as we know them, but look and act differently.  Furthermore, not every possible action must be played out in a probable universe.  Many of them are played out in our dreams.  Some of them are projected into other planes and played out there by other individuals (I'm pretty sure Seth gave that as an option).

Hi Caleb, We each have INFINITE numbers of probable realities. To each one of these probable realities directly related to a person, he is one of their invisible probable realities.

I would say that infinite probable realities do not resemble our universe or rely on our physics at all. Probable realities don't pop up in a vacuum. They relate to our physical choices as well as to our imagination.

The ones that directly relate to our choices, would have probable selves that resemble us. Other probable realities via the imagination may not have us in them at all...and/or may have totally bizarre realities in them.

EACH of the infinite probable realities continue...they do not end when we choose which one to use. These infinite probable realities that continue--then each have their ever-growing infinite probable realities as the "you" in that probable reality makes it's choices.

Then, throw into the mix the infinite dream realities of these probable realities and the dream and probable realities of the dream selves...you can get a glimpse of the amazing EXPANSION of the universe and/or multiverses based on the ever-expanding, unending and infinite dream and probable realities.

[barrie]

when I come to a decision point and both decisions are followed through, creating a new universe, that means that there is another "me" with a different future in that new probability.

There are infinite probable and dream Larry's. There are a great many key decisions each day.

[Caleb Murdock]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited.  The Material didn't leave me with the impression that the number approaches infinity.

[barrie]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited.  The Material didn't leave me with the impression that the number approaches infinity.

Hi Caleb, I do choose my words carefully...altho I can obviously sometimes make mistakes. Additionally, I have studied the Seth material for many decades—equally using my own intuition and inner awareness. Altho, I can sometimes make mistakes—but not in this case. Seth does indeed say that there are INFINITE numbers of probable realities...and dream realities, too, and each forever expanding:

Seth (Session 438): The nature of any given PROBABLE action does not lead to any particular inevitable act. Probabilities expand in terms of value fulfillment. One given act does not necessarily lead, then, to act A, B and C, onward to some concluding action. Instead, it has offshoots in INFINITE directions, and these have offshoots.

Seth (Session 446): "There is no end to the within of things. The dreamer dreams and the dreamer within the dream dreams, and sometimes the dreamers are aware of each other."

Barrie Comments: And it is obvious that the dreamers each have THEIR OWN probable realities which have their own dreams and probable realities etc etc..into infinity

Seth (Session 509): The inner self has a vast and INFINITE reservoir from which to draw knowledge and experience. All kinds of choices are available, and the diversity of physical matter is a reflection of this deep source of variety.

Seth (Session 530): "After death in your terms, you are quite free perceptively. The future appears as clearly as the past. Even this is highly complicated, however, for there is not just one past. You accept as real only certain classifications of events and ignore others. We have mentioned events. There are also PROBABLE pasts, therefore, that exist quite outside of your comprehension. You choose one particular group of these, and latch upon this group of events as the only ones possible, not realizing that you have selected from an INFINITE variety of past events."

Seth (Session 531):  "At a very simple level, for example, your consciousness leaves your body often in the sleep state. You communicate with people in other levels of reality that you have known, but far beyond this, you creatively maintain and revitalize your physical image. You process daily experience, project it into what you think of as the future, choose from an INFINIITY of PROBABLE events those you will make physical, and begin the mental and psychic processes that will bring them into the world of substance."

Seth (Session 565):  "The soul can be described for that matter, as a multidimensional, INFINITE act, each minute probability being brought somewhere into actuality and existence; an INFINITE creative act that creates for itself INFINITE dimensions in which fulfillment is possible."

Barrie Comments: This quote is significant because one question brought up is what causes a PROBABLE reality to be created? Only the important things? But how would you know what was going to be important or not--unless you explored all the INFINITE probabilities. In any case, here is Seth saying that EACH MINUTE PROBABILITY is brought into actuality and existence. I guess it makes sense, you do need a 'large' number to be INFINITE--and it seems limited PROBABLE reality creations to only some events--would not approach INFINITE numbers.

Above, the "impossible" PROBABLE realities are being addressed. Somewhere they ARE actualized into existence--altho not on our known, shared physical reality. Thus, there IS a "place" where each PROBABLE reality exists--including the "impossible" ones--like those in which we have 10 arms and re-grow lost limbs on our whim.



Seth (Session 557):  "There are, therefore, many other equally valid, equally real evolutionary developments that have occurred and are occurring and will occur, all within other PROBABLE systems of physical reality. The diverse, ENDLESS POSSIBILITIES of development possible could never appear within one slender framework of reality."

Seth (Session 560):  If you will try to accept the idea that your own existence is multidimensional, that you dwell within the medium of INFINITE PROBABILITIES, then you may catch a glimpse of the reality that is behind the word "god", and you may understand why it is almost impossible to capture a true understanding of that concept in words.

Seth (Session 658): Think of the present as a pool of experience drawn from many sources, fed, in your terms, by tributaries from both the past and the future. There are an INFINITE number of such tributaries (PROBABILITIES), and through your beliefs you choose from these, adjusting their currents.

Seth (Session 669): "In waking reality, beliefs take time before their materialization is apparent. From INFINITE PROBABLE acts, only one can be physically experienced as a rule."

Seth (Session 684): The precious privacy of your existence, and indeed of your universe, is all the more miraculous, so to speak, precisely because its PROBABLE reality emerges from an INFINITE field of probabilities, each FOREVER INVIOLATE (UNDERLINED).

Barrie Comments: I looked it up in the dictionary: "Forever inviolate" means that it forever remains intact. In other words, here is Seth directly stating that each PROBABLE reality carries on--and doesn't just end or die out after your 'choice' is made about what to physicalize. In order for it to carry on--there has to be a "me" or a "you" in it. Thus, if the PROBABLE realities are INFINITE, then there must be "INFINITE" me's (& you's) in them, experiencing them in their ongoing fashion.

And the thing is, and this is what I find mindblowing, but fun: Each PROBABLE reality of these INFINITE numbers--keep ENDLESSLY creating their own "new" INFINITE numbers of PROBABLE realities as each "me" in them--faces the "next" choice to make. In order to make that choice I would need to explore a new set of INFINITE probabilities. And these would, in turn, create new INFINITE probabilities. So, these INFINITE probabilities keep forever expanding or blossoming in a geometric fashion--if that is the right term.

And, that is not all--it does NOT end there. Add to this the INFINITE number of inviolate DREAM REALITIES--which also keep geometrically forever expanding--as each of the INFINITE numbers of PROBABLE selves go to sleep & dream.

And, of course, PROBABLE realities are created by the dream selves--when they have to make a decision or based on THEIR imagination—and dream realities are forever created by the infinite probable selves in THEIR realities.


Seth (Session 740): If you would identify with your own psychological reality, following the inward structure of thoughts and feelings, you would discover an inward psychological INFINIITY. These "INFINITIES" would reach of course into both an INFINITE past and future. Yet true INFINIITY reaches far beyond past or future, and INTO ALL PROBABILITIES - not simply straightforward into time, or backward.

Seth (Session 789): In the predream state you directly encounter a reality in which those PROBABILITIES exist all at once to your perception. In a dazzling display you are aware of such events from INFINITE perspectives. Consciously you could not grasp such information, much less act upon it, nor could you maintain your particular, unique, psychological stance. You still take advantage of that level of being, however, using that immeasurable data as a basis to form the reality that you know.

Seth (Session 823): "Each of you, with your beliefs and intents, tell the inner ego which of an INFINITE number of PROBABLE events you want to encounter. In the dream state events from both frameworks are processed. The dream state involves not only a state of consciousness that exists between the two frameworks of reality, but also involves, in those terms, a connecting reality of its own."



  [/b]

[Deb]

Well since this topic as gone every which way, I thought I'd throw this out. It seems Darryl Anka aka Bashar is/was a Seth fan, which I've wondered about. I just found this out today. BTW Darryl is the brother of the singer Paul Anka. It seems Mary never got around to checking the fan letter from Darryl, so I don't know for sure whether he actually attended a class. Darryl/Bashar also came up in a couple of Seth Reality Change magazines articles (mid 80s?). If or when I can visit the Yale library, this is one of the things I'll look into. BTW Lawrence was one of the original class members. @barrie, do you have anything to contribute about this?

From: Mary Dillman
To: Lawrence Davidson 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: Darryl Anka

Hi Lawrence,

It's possible that Darryl attended a class because in the later years everyone wasn't listed in the records. Can't really prove it one way or the other from the records available. I did find a letter in the fan mail from him dated July 1979. I didn't realize it was the Bashar guy so didn't transcribe it. Unfortunately, I can't get to the library for at least a few weeks because I sprained my leg/knee and am housebound.  Perhaps the letter will mention something that will indicate previous contact. I'll check it - feel free to remind me this fall if you haven't heard more about it from me. (I sometimes forget....)

Sorry I don't have the information readily available that tells me when you spoke in class. 

Mary

[Sena]

We each have INFINITE numbers of probable realities.

Barrie, we need to keep in mind that infinity is a non-existent number:

Here are some of the contexts in which the question "is there such a thing as infinity" can be asked, and the answers appropriate for each context. The details are given afterwards.

In the context of a number system,
in which "infinity" would mean something one can treat like a number.
In this context, infinity does not exist.

https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html

[Sena]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited.

Caleb, I agree that that is a better way of putting it.

[barrie]

We each have INFINITE numbers of probable realities.

Barrie, we need to keep in mind that infinity is a non-existent number:

Here are some of the contexts in which the question "is there such a thing as infinity" can be asked, and the answers appropriate for each context. The details are given afterwards.

In the context of a number system,
in which "infinity" would mean something one can treat like a number.
In this context, infinity does not exist.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited.

Caleb, I agree that that is a better way of putting it.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited.

Caleb, I agree that that is a better way of putting it.

Sena and Caleb, Tell it to Seth, not me:

Seth (Session 530): "After death in your terms, you are quite free perceptively. The future appears as clearly as the past. Even this is highly complicated, however, for there is not just one past. You accept as real only certain classifications of events and ignore others. We have mentioned events. There are also PROBABLE pasts, therefore, that exist quite outside of your comprehension. You choose one particular group of these, and latch upon this group of events as the only ones possible, NOT REALIZING THAT YOU HAVE SELECTED FROM AN INFINITE VARIETY OF PAST EVENTS."

Seth (Session 531):  "At a very simple level, for example, your consciousness leaves your body often in the sleep state. You communicate with people in other levels of reality that you have known, but far beyond this, you creatively maintain and revitalize your physical image. You process daily experience, project it into what you think of as the future, CHOOSE FROM AN INFINIITY OF PROBABLE EVENTS THOSE YOU WILL MAKE PHYSICAL, and begin the mental and psychic processes that will bring them into the world of substance."

Seth (Session 565):  "The soul can be described for that matter, as a multidimensional, INFINITE act, EACH MINUTE PROBABILITY BEING BROUGHT SOMEWHERE INTO ACTUALITY AND EXISTENCE; AN INFINITE CREATIVE ACT THAT CREATES FOR ITSELF INFINITE DIMENSIONS IN WHICH FULFILLMENT IS POSSIBLE."

Seth (Session 560):  If you will try to accept the idea that your own existence is multidimensional, that YOU DWELL WITHIN THE MEDIUM OF INFINITE PROBABILITIES, then you may catch a glimpse of the reality that is behind the word "god", and you may understand why it is almost impossible to capture a true understanding of that concept in words.

Seth (Session 658): Think of the present as a pool of experience drawn from many sources, fed, in your terms, by tributaries from both the past and the future. THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF SUCH TRIBUTARIES (PROBABILITIES), AND THROUGH YOUR BELIEFS YOU CHOOSE FROM THESE, ADJUSTING THEIR CURRENTS.

Seth (Session 669): "In waking reality, beliefs take time before their materialization is apparent. FROM INFINITE PROBABLE ACTS, ONLY ONE CAN BE PHYSICALLY EXPERIENCED AS A RULE."

Seth (Session 684): The precious privacy of your existence, and indeed of your universe, is all the more miraculous, so to speak, precisely because ITS PROBABLE REALITY EMERGES FROM AN INFINITE FIELD OF PROBABILITIES, each forever inviolate (underlined).

Seth (Session 740): If you would identify with your own psychological reality, following the inward structure of thoughts and feelings, you would discover an inward psychological INFINIITY. These "INFINITIES" would reach of course into both an INFINITE past and future. YET TRUE INFINIITY REACHES FAR BEYOND PAST OR FUTURE, AND INTO ALL PROBABILITIES - not simply straightforward into time, or backward.

Seth (Session 789): In the predream state you directly encounter a reality in which those PROBABILITIES exist all at once to your perception. In a dazzling display YOU ARE AWARE OF SUCH EVENTS FROM INFINITE PERSPECTIVES. Consciously you could not grasp such information, much less act upon it, nor could you maintain your particular, unique, psychological stance. You still take advantage of that level of being, however, using that immeasurable data as a basis to form the reality that you know.

Seth (Session 823): "Each of you, with your beliefs and intents, tell the inner ego WHICH OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF PROBABLE EVENTS YOU WANT TO ENCOUNTER. In the dream state events from both frameworks are processed. The dream state involves not only a state of consciousness that exists between the two frameworks of reality, but also involves, in those terms, a connecting reality of its own."



 

[barrie]

Sena and Caleb, I'll distill the quotes more to make it a simpler to discern that Seth says there are INFINITE probable realities. You may not like the term, and that is fine. But just know that your comments rightfully should be addressed to Seth...

Seth (Session 530): "You choose one particular group of these, and latch upon this group of events as the only ones possible, not realizing that you have selected FROM AN INFINITE VARIETY OF PAST EVENTS."

Seth (Session 531):  " You process daily experience, project it into what you think of as the future, CHOOSE FROM AN INFINIITY OF PROBABLE EVENTS THOSE YOU WILL MAKE PHYSICAL, and begin the mental and psychic processes that will bring them into the world of substance."

Seth (Session 565):  "The soul can be described for that matter, as a multidimensional, INFINITE act, EACH MINUTE PROBABILITY BEING BROUGHT SOMEWHERE INTO ACTUALITY AND EXISTENCE; AN INFINITE CREATIVE ACT THAT CREATES FOR ITSELF INFINITE DIMENSIONS IN WHICH FULFILLMENT IS POSSIBLE."

Seth (Session 560):  If you will try to accept the idea that your own existence is multidimensional, that YOU DWELL WITHIN THE MEDIUM OF INFINITE PROBABILITIES...

Seth (Session 658): THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF SUCH TRIBUTARIES (PROBABILITIES), and through your beliefs you choose from these, adjusting their currents.

Seth (Session 669): "FROM INFINITE PROBABLE ACTS, only one can be physically experienced as a rule."

Seth (Session 684): "its probable reality emerges from AN INFINITE FIELD OF PROBABILITIES, each forever inviolate (underlined).

Seth (Session 740):. [/b]YET TRUE INFINIITY REACHES FAR BEYOND PAST OR FUTURE, AND INTO ALL PROBABILITIES 

Seth (Session 789): In the predream state you directly encounter a reality in which those PROBABILITIES exist all at once to your perception. In a dazzling display YOU ARE AWARE OF SUCH EVENTS FROM INFINITE PERSPECTIVES.

Seth (Session 823): "Each of you, with your beliefs and intents, tell the inner ego which of an INFINITE NUMBER OF PROBABLE EVENTS YOU WANT TO ENCOUNTER.

[barrie]

BTW Darryl is the brother of the singer Paul Anka.

Hi Deb, I can't find any mention of Darryl in any class transcript. I would guess that if someone combed thru all of his writings and comments--he would mention various things about Seth, including if he went to a class.

BTW, actually Darryl was Paul's first cousin:

"Darryl Anka was born in Ottawa on October 12, 1951. He moved to Los Angeles as a child where his father, a nightclub entertainer, was expected to become the "next Mario Lanza." Musical fame found its way down another branch of the Anka family tree. Darryl's first cousin is "Puppy Love" crooner, Paul Anka. The cousins don't keep in touch. Darryl began his career as a Hollywood special effects designer, and worked on films such as Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Pirates of the Caribbean, and I Robot."
--https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/19/everything-you-need-to-know-about-paul-ankas-cousin-and-his-multi-dimensional-alien-friend/

"Born in Ottawa Ontario, Darryl is the first cousin of singer Paul Anka."
--http://masterthesecretlawofattraction.com/darryl-anka-bashar

[Tob]

--https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/19/everything-you-need-to-know-about-paul-ankas-cousin-and-his-multi-dimensional-alien-friend/

"Darryl has been swindling people this way since 1983, and he has garnered high praise in what is known as the channeling community among people who believe that human beings can communicate with disembodied spirits from other dimensions."

One should not just post such kind of 'sources' without any comment. There are similar verdicts about the Seth material as well.

Seth should be judged by what he communicated, not by the strange sounds he made when communicating through Jane Roberts. The same applies to Bashar/Darryl Anka. One should judge by the quality of the material.

Having said that, it is not my job to defend either. As far as I understand, their teachings are basically free of inherent contradictions and they make sense e.g. in the context of the 'Virtual Reality Theory' of Tom Campbell.

If I were Darryl Anka I would take the above source to court.

[barrie]

One should not just post such kind of 'sources' without any comment. There are similar verdicts about the Seth material as well.

Seth should be judged by what he communicated, not by the strange sounds he made when communicating through Jane Roberts. The same applies to Bashar/Darryl Anka. One should judge by the quality of the material.

The excerpted part of that article simply said that the Ankas were cousins.

As for Seth and judging him, Everyone I ever met or talked to--judged Seth by the quality of his material-as did Jane and Rob--who never would have continued with Seth if not for the quality of the material.

[Deb]

Hi Deb, I can't find any mention of Darryl in any class transcript. I would guess that if someone combed thru all of his writings and comments--he would mention various things about Seth, including if he went to a class.

OK thanks for checking. And thanks for the correction on family relations, for some reason I thought I'd read years ago they were brothers. I did come across a short letter from Darryl to Jane from July 1979. I can't share it entirely for copyright reasons, but it was about a project he was proposing, Project Ezekiel, "to create this planet's first fully realized starship." He didn't mention anything about attending sessions.

Other than that, I found nothing about him attending sessions other than this page, which isn't specific on the "source" of the information. So, who knows. It doesn't really matter, I just thought it was interesting.

One should not just post such kind of 'sources' without any comment. There are similar verdicts about the Seth material as well.

And this is the age of "information."    I remember seeing on another forum a person bashing Jane, saying she was a raging alcoholic and he referred to the YT video of her channeling Seth as proof. He also said that she was a nut job and died from alcoholism. People say all kinds of nasty things without substantiating their claims. Even the media does it. It's always a challenge to separate facts from opinions.

[Tob]

Hi Deb, I can't find any mention of Darryl in any class transcript. I would guess that if someone combed thru all of his writings and comments--he would mention various things about Seth, including if he went to a class.

OK thanks for checking. And thanks for the correction on family relations, for some reason I thought I'd read years ago they were brothers. I did come across a short letter from Darryl to Jane from July 1979. I can't share it entirely for copyright reasons, but it was about a project he was proposing, Project Ezekiel, "to create this planet's first fully realized starship." He didn't mention anything about attending sessions.

Other than that, I found nothing about him attending sessions other than this page, which isn't specific on the "source" of the information. So, who knows. It doesn't really matter, I just thought it was interesting.

One should not just post such kind of 'sources' without any comment. There are similar verdicts about the Seth material as well.

And this is the age of "information."    I remember seeing on another forum a person bashing Jane, saying she was a raging alcoholic and he referred to the YT video of her channeling Seth as proof. He also said that she was a nut job and died from alcoholism. People say all kinds of nasty things without substantiating their claims. Even the media does it. It's always a challenge to separate facts from opinions.

Thank you. The content of these two pages corresponds more or less to the information usually provided by Darryl Anka regarding the beginnings. I never heard him say the words 'Seth', 'Jane Roberts', etc.

https://apocalypse-how.com/darryl-anka/
http://masterthesecretlawofattraction.com/darryl-anka-bashar


'Channeling class' and 'teacher' is the maximum you get to hear. Thus, the information provided by the first source above clearly 'goes beyond'.

There was a time when there were several thousand privately produced Bashar videos on youtube, enabling the discussion of his teachings in the comments sections. I remember to have read once or twice about a connection to the Seth events.

But as of today there was no statement to that effect made by Darryl Anka in public.

By the way. The picture is Darryl Anka, not Bashar. He looks different.

[Sena]

Sena and Caleb, Tell it to Seth, not me:

Barrie, the question here is how much of Seth's teaching as transmitted to us is literally true, and how much is open to interpretation. To my knowledge, Seth did not claim to be omniscient. We cannot assume that Jane transmitted Seth's thoughts perfectly, and it may well be that Rob added his own interpretation when writing down the material.
Just as I reject the infallibility of the Pope's ex cathedra statements, I reject any claim that the Seth writings are infallible.
Seth said he was a minor Pope in a previous incarnation, but did he claim to be an infallible Pope when speaking through Jane?

[barrie]

Barrie, the question here is how much of Seth's teaching as transmitted to us is literally true

Hi Sena,

Sena Writes: Barrie, the question here is how much of Seth's teaching as transmitted to us is literally true, and how much is open to interpretation. To my knowledge, Seth did not claim to be omniscient. We cannot assume that Jane transmitted Seth's thoughts perfectly..."

Barrie Responds: Sena, you speak the OBVIOUS...and thanks for changing the question here. The question here was NEVER about how much Seth's teachings are literally true. The question IS and WAS did SETH actually USE the term "infinity" in regard to probable realities. I personally don't care who agrees or disagrees with that. Everyone should feel free to disagree with that or anything else Seth says all they want.

But the FACT is Caleb Had Written (#181): "I think it would be more accurate to say that the number of probable and dream Larrys is unlimited.  The Material didn't leave me with the impression that the number approaches infinity.

Barrie Responds: It was to THAT that I had responded that Seth did indeed say there were infinite numbers of probable realities--and he definitely DID leave that impression. And I never said. added or thought that it was an infallible statement.

When did this thread morph into a discussion if Seth was infallible? Never...except in your head, maybe. It seems the goal posts of some discussions often get moved to something else.

BUT, if that WAS the question: Do you want to know what I think, feel and believe about what you NOW bring up:

You, me and EVERYONE are free to and SHOULD disagree with ANYTHING that Seth says...with my blessings that no one needs.

And you, me and EVERYONE are free to say, "Seth is WRONG and full of shit in regards to....(fill in the blank),"...with my blessings that no one needs.

Even in this thread I said in Message # 187:

Barrie Had Said: "You may not like the term, and that is fine. But just know that your comments rightfully should be addressed to Seth..."

Barrie NOW Writes: I said this because SETH was the one who repeatedly used the term "infinite" in regard to probable realities. I did not say this thinking that Seth was infallible or anything close to that. THAT never even entered my mind.

Sena Continues: "and it may well be that Rob added his own interpretation when writing down the material."

Barrie Responds: Well, IF you mean Rob's transcribing in longhand what Seth said--then this I do fully disagree with. There is absolutely no evidence of this...and Seth would have corrected Rob if he did so.

IF you are claiming that the actually words Seth said in his books may not even be what Seth said because Rob changed them--then I disagree fully. YOU can believe that all you want, tho. THIS is very different than disagreeing with WHAT Seth said. You now say that Seth may not have even said things in the book.

ONCE you go down that rabbit hole, the door is open for anyone to say anything about the Seth material but adding, "Well, this is what he WOULD HAVE SAID if Rob wrote it down correctly."

And believe me or not, that type of argument has been made a number of times--when Seth was in disagreement with what someone believed. They did not simply say, "Well, I disagree with Seth." They actually say that Seth WOULD HAVE said it, but...

Sena Continues: "I reject any claim that the Seth writings are infallible."

Barrie Responds: Who made that claim? I never in my whole life made any claim close to that. In fact, I always made the opposite claim.

For just one example: This is how I started my 11-10-09 Seth Presentation called: How Deeply Embedded In The Seth Material Is The Concept Of Not Hurting And Actually Helping Others?

Barrie Had Written: "First, I'd like to state what I hope will always be
one major ground rule
That I believe is key to everything,
Which, of course, includes the Seth material,
And it is this:

"In any discussion or presentation of the type I am about to give,
Or any type:

"In the end, TRUST yourselves first and foremost over everyone else—
Listen to what others say, listen to what I say, listen to what Seth says--
And then TRUST and listen to your SELF as you assess it all
And hold onto whatever rings true deep down inside you,
And throw away or put on hold—everything else.

"Allow me to add one more thing:
Be brave in questioning yourself
Be brave in delving within.
Be prepared to find answers and new questions
You never dreamed possible
Or that may even scare you.
You are always giving messages to yourself
If you have the willingness to listen...

"One of the bravest things you can do, in my opinion,
Is to take these inner journeys of self-awareness
Part of which is to examine what you believe and why
In light of your new experiences
Which includes what happens every day,
And what happens here today.

"And THEN, of course, to TRUST yourself,
Which means to be willing to modify, change, or
Hold onto more firmly—
Any beliefs which come into play."

[Sena]

Barrie Had Said: "You may not like the term, and that is fine. But just know that your comments rightfully should be addressed to Seth..."

Barrie, if anyone addresses comments to Seth, he/she may be delusional. Seth is not a person in physical reality to whom one could rationally address comments.

[strangerthings]

Thanks everybody for your responses. Now I have a different question: when I come to a decision point and both decisions are followed through, creating a new universe, that means that there is another "me" with a different future in that new probability. Seth talked about only two other probable Robs, though he was not necessarily saying that they were the only other probable Robs. There are those who say that moment by moment, we are creating new probabilities, which would mean that there is a virtually infinite number of "me's". Even if we assume that there are on average one key decision per year that causes a new probability, and each probable self continues to split once a year, that means that in 20 years, there would be 1,048,576 "me's", over a trillion "me's" after 40 years, etc. Do you think I would ever to be able to integrate all of those "me's" at a "greater self" level?

Seth does mention being able to communicate with them and sending them love for example all at once... Seth talks about what you just asked... if i can find it i will post it

[strangerthings]

Barrie Had Said: "You may not like the term, and that is fine. But just know that your comments rightfully should be addressed to Seth..."

Barrie, if anyone addresses comments to Seth, he/she may be delusional. Seth is not a person in physical reality to whom one could rationally address comments.

Better yet, ask your entity.

[strangerthings]

The self is not limited.

There are no boundaries or separations to the self.

Therefor, ask Seth. 

There is also nothing to stop anyone from asking Seth. There are no blocks in your way unless you think there are. If you find those blocks make a new block to block their view so you can ask Seth.

Also work with the pendulums. Your subconscious has invaluable information.

[barrie]

There is also nothing to stop anyone from asking Seth. There are no blocks in your way unless you think there are. If you find those blocks make a new block to block their view so you can ask Seth.

Strangerthings, Anyone can ask Seth anything they want. That doesn't change the FACT that Seth said he has CHOSEN to only communicate via Jane in order to maintain the intergrity and authenticity of the material--and to avoid great distortion. He also has said that BOTH Jane and Rob were needed for him to come thru at all.

Seth also said that people use his name because they are afraid of being their own authority AND also that they use his name as a SYMBOL for their own inner communication:

Seth (Deleted Session, 7-2-77, longer version): "Many of the people who read my books...realize that the authorities know far less than they originally supposed. They are afraid, however, of going out on their own, so to speak...

"They do not trust themselves. They do not have the stamina, or the resoluteness, however, yet, to face a reality in which THEY are the creators of their circumstances. They no longer TRUST religion or science in organizational terms...They must accept the fact that Ruburt...will dare to follow the dictates of the inner self, and this makes the entire affair more frightening to them...

"... and since they distrust themselves they cannot really understand how the two of YOU trust yourselves as much as you do. They use MY position as a substitute for the authority they are trying to give up. They think "IF I HAD A SETH, I too would progress...."

Seth (Deleted Session 7-2-77): "People become FRIGHTENED sometimes...They want to think that I spring AUTOMATICALLY into your lives, as SUPERMAN. They did not question Superman. Only a simple change of clothing was required for our hero, Mr. Kent. They do NOT want Ruburt's inquiring mind to intrude.

"What comic book reader wants to bother with a CLARK KENT ... Or worse--wants Clark Kent to shout out from the phone booth, or wherever: "You can do (YOUR VERSION) of this too because we ALL have a reality in which we are Clark Kent AND Superman at one and the same time"? Such people simply want Superman to PERFORM his miracles.

"They want to keep Clark Kent and Superman entirely SEPARATE on a mental, psychical, and physical basis, and ONLY in the terms of our analogy...I become a SUPERSOUL rather than SUPERMAN. They do NOT want my AUTHORITY questioned...They think that if THEY had their OWN SUPERSOUL they would have FAR better sense than Ruburt, and they would use me as if I were a MAGIC GENIE. They are afraid Ruburt might...QUESTION ME OUT OF EXISTENCE, for they do NOT understand that Ruburt's questions, and YOURS (Rob's), your sense of integrity, are partially responsible for a "superman" rather than a SUPERMOUSE."


Seth as SYMBOL in Dreams, out of bodies, automatic writing, and other communications:

Seth (ESP Class, 3-12-74): Class Member: "Seth, would you help me in my DREAMS if I tried to contact you?"

Seth Responds: "You help yourself in your own dreams. You do not need me. You may use the SYMBOL of me, but when you do, it is a SYMBOL OF YOUR OWN INNER KNOWLEDGE, for I am the SYMBOL OF THE KNOWLEDGE THAT DWELLS WITHIN EACH OF YOUR PSYCHES. I am MYSELF, but beyond that I am the SYMBOL of the knowledge that dwells within each of your psyches."

Jane (God of Jane, 1981): "(A) man 'in contact' with Seth...wanted to inform me that I'd distorted Seth's material on Christ, and that Seth had TOLD him so!...Good Christ!' I muttered irritably to Rob when I read the letter.  What about the other two people who wrote last year, each with their own versions of Christ's life, each contradicting the other, and each supposedly containing corrections from Seth?'...

I'd written the man a brief note explaining that he was free to believe what he wanted about Christ's life -- that HE WASN'T IN CONTACT WITH SETH, BUT WITH HIS OWN SYMBOLIZED VERSION OF WHO OR WHAT HE THOUGHT SETH WAS."

Jane (Chap.9, 1970, Seth Material): "Mrs. Brian had a terrific headache while reading the article (about Seth); suddenly she thought she felt Seth's presence. An inner voice, presumably Seth's, told her that she had been feeling sorry for herself that she must stop brooding over her health at once, get up, and go out for a walk. If SO, she would improve at once....

"We asked Seth about the incident. In this case, he said, Mrs. Brian had USED HIM AS A SYMBOL OF HER INNER SELF, or SUPRACONSCIOUSNESS, to deliver help and healing influences as well as advice. The experience helped the woman to use her own abilities, and the IDEA of Seth ENABLED HER TO ACTIVATE HER OWN HEALING FORCES."

Seth (Session 876, 8-27-79): "A woman wrote that she was involved with. . . correspondences in which I was communicating with her, and she was certain that this would prove beyond a doubt my own independent nature, since I [would have given] messages to another medium besides Ruburt. The woman was quite convinced of that.

"Other people have written that I have given them such messages. Another woman DREAMED of me; and had an experience in which a child was definitely healed. Now, I DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THOSE WOMEN—BUT THEIR BELIEF IN ME HELPED EACH OF THEM USE CERTAIN ABILITIES. One woman has done some writing—not very good—but still, those abilities came to the fore. The other woman was able to use her OWN healing abilities."