Seth on the boundaries of the self

[Sena]

Seth tells us that the boundaries of the self are "merely arbitrary":

"The boundaries, limitations, extent and vistas of the self are merely arbitrary. In a very true sense each self is infinite, unbounded, connected in a most intimate way to all other things in the universe on your plane; and through the inner senses and the inner ego connected also in a most intimate way to the unknown and unseen inner universe. Here we run into something that will be difficult for me to explain to you. Any particular self theoretically could expand his consciousness to contain the universe and everything in it. The closed-in, solitary, isolated self of which you are so proud is, as I have said, an arbitrary formation, containing the core of identity; and you seem to prefer, psychically speaking, to stay at home." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 2 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/fI5YflN

A person with schizophrenia who says "I am God" may have cottoned on to a valid truth, but we seem to need self-imposed limitations to lead a "normal" life.

[Deb]

Wow, what a really profound quote, thank you. "Any particular self theoretically could expand his consciousness to contain the universe and everything in it." Hard to wrap my head around that.

Seth has told us so many times that our limitations are self-imposed. And for a good reason, we're here to focus and get some work done. It took me a while to understand how there could be no limits to the self, because I was still seeing myself as being a human in a body. But our "real" self is non-physical and is therefore not bound by anything. Still hard to fully comprehend—something to contemplate.

[Sena]

Wow, what a really profound quote, thank you. "Any particular self theoretically could expand his consciousness to contain the universe and everything in it."

Deb, it seems to me that this Seth teaching is probably compatible with Buddhism. Unsophisticated Buddhists would say, "According to the Buddha, there is no soul." I think what the Buddha meant was that he disagreed with the idea that the soul is a spiritual "blob" attached to a body.

[Deb]

Deb, it seems to me that this Seth teaching is probably compatible with Buddhism.

I've been told that. I don't know much if anything about Buddhism, I want to look into it. And you have a point about the soul, it's like Seth said, we don't have a soul, we are one. But in the big picture it is not separate, but a part of everything. (ATI)

[strangerthings]

@Sena , In a bout of dear playfulness, Buddha begins with B(e) U(you), and a bud, always in a state of becoming 🙂