THESE PEOPLE LIVED ON A PLANET IN THE SAME SPACE THAT YOUR PLANET NOW OCCUPIES

[Mark M]

Below is from Seth's outline for Seth Speaks (quoted by Jane in her introduction to the book where she said he stuck to his outline better than she ever did for her books, but this was not addressed in Speaks or anywhere in the material that I know of):

"Now. There will be a chapter on the religions of the world, on the distortions and truths within them; the three Christs; and some data concerning a lost religion (pause; one of many), belonging to a people of which you have no information. These people lived on a planet in the same space that your planet now occupies, in quotes 'before' your planet existed. They destroyed it through their own error, and here reincarnated when your planet was prepared. Their memories (long pause), became the basis for the birth of religion as you now think of it."

—Seth, TES9, Session 510, January 19, 1970

"They destroyed it [their planet] through their own error, and here reincarnated when your planet was prepared." This means people are older than planet earth. This is not a surprise if one accepts that consciousness gives rise to form, not form giving rise to consciousness. Per this, Seth has stated the theory of evolution is much a fairy tale as the Eden story, I believe in Seth Speaks.
Earth was prepared by way of consciousness.

[inavalan]

Physical space and time are camouflages. --- https://findingseth.com/q/'space+camouflage'~3/

This quote highlights that one's camouflages are different from others' camouflages:

     "Funny because you think of them as vehicles traveling through your own camouflage space. Any vehicles would travel through their own camouflage space, and in some instances are doing so, even now, in the so-called space taken up by your earthly universe." —TES1 Session 40 April 1, 1964

Also, events, both observable and stories, have multi-layered symbolism, and one's interpretation is likely different from others' interpretations.

[inavalan]

Physical space and time are camouflages. --- https://findingseth.com/q/'space+camouflage'~3/

This quote highlights that one's camouflages are different from others' camouflages:

     "Funny because you think of them as vehicles traveling through your own camouflage space. Any vehicles would travel through their own camouflage space, and in some instances are doing so, even now, in the so-called space taken up by your earthly universe." —TES1 Session 40 April 1, 1964

Also, events, both observable and stories, have multi-layered symbolism, and one's interpretation is likely different from others' interpretations.

This is another quote that I find useful:

     "I have also said that space travel, so-called, will of necessity deviate from its present concern with vehicles. It will be discovered that the inner senses represent your only long-lasting method of such travel.

     When it is understood that space and time are both camouflages, and that your cause and effect theory is a result of a continuity theory that no longer makes sense, then your scientists will recognize the impossibility of trying to decipher basic reality with camouflage instruments, and vehicles, that of themselves produce distortive theories, and only serve to probe further into a camouflage pattern.

     The experiments will be many. Hypnotism, as I have mentioned, will be a basic tool in the beginning. Hypnotism, you see, is not a camouflage tool, but a psychological tool which is therefore uncamouflaged, and relatively undistorted.

     Hypnotism will be necessary, however, only for a time, and only to induce the light trance state. In the light trance state, the inner self is free from the camouflage nature of your plane, and the truly humorous aspect is this: Only by freeing yourself from your own camouflage universe can you see it clearly, understand it for what it is, and actually learn to use it for mankind's best advantage."

—TES2 Session 49 April 29, 1964

[LarryH]

These people lived on a planet in the same space that your planet now occupies, in quotes 'before' your planet existed. They destroyed it through their own error, and here reincarnated when your planet was prepared.

I'm struggling with this quote. If there was a planet different from our earth in the same orbit that was destroyed, where is the asteroid belt in this orbit that would be made up of all the debris from that planet? That is from conventional logic, so let's look at other possibilities. Is it possible that this other planet was in a different probability in which its debris still exists? Or did the inhabitants destroy the planet by de-materializing it altogether via some advanced science or psychic ability? Could it have been swallowed in a black hole or gone into another dimension? And what does it mean to "prepare" our planet? Did it just materialize from nothing? Was it hauled in by Seth 2 on a tractor beam from another solar system? Oh, back to conventional logic, perhaps the destroyed planet debris simply fell back into itself and re-formed as our planet. OK, that's the one I'm going with.

[Sena]

Or did the inhabitants destroy the planet by de-materializing it altogether via some advanced science or psychic ability?

Larry, that is certainly a possibility. If all physical reality is camouflage realty, it would be quite possible to dematerialize a planet if the majority agreed to it consciously or unconsciously. Unconscious agreement may be an impotant factor; all those in the past or present who have warlike intentions may have a strong unconscious wish to dematerialize the planet.

[inavalan]

Or did the inhabitants destroy the planet by de-materializing it altogether via some advanced science or psychic ability?

Larry, that is certainly a possibility. If all physical reality is camouflage realty, it would be quite possible to dematerialize a planet if the majority agreed to it consciously or unconsciously. Unconscious agreement may be an impotant factor; all those in the past or present who have warlike intentions may have a strong unconscious wish to dematerialize the planet.

The way I understand it, it isn't a matter of "majority agreeing", then something is created, but everyone chooses one of the possible realities in the present. From that perspective, everybody also chooses probable pasts and futures. There isn't one single objective reality that all the participants experience.

"All probable worlds exist now. All probable variations on the most minute aspect in any reality exist now. You weave in and out of probabilities constantly, picking and choosing as you go along. The cells within your body do the same thing."
—UR1 Section 1: Session 681 February 11, 1974

[Bora137]

Maybe this is Maldek?. This description says the asteroid belt beyond Mars is what remains which would then place it not in the same place as earth is now though.

http://www.lyratek.com/maldek.htm

[Mark M]

Add in this:

"I said that your conventional geological ages were faulty, along with your theories of the age of the earth, for it is far older than is supposed."

—Seth, TPS4 Deleted Session November 14, 1977

[Sena]

There isn't one single objective reality that all the participants experience.

invalan, Seth did speak of consensus reality:

"Your species shares with the other species a feeling of kinship for its kind. There is a great give-and-take of ideas. You end up, then, with a consensus, generally speaking, as to what a reasonable picture of agreed-upon reality is."
—TMA Session Seven: August 28, 1980

[inavalan]

There isn't one single objective reality that all the participants experience.

invalan, Seth did speak of consensus reality:

"Your species shares with the other species a feeling of kinship for its kind. There is a great give-and-take of ideas. You end up, then, with a consensus, generally speaking, as to what a reasonable picture of agreed-upon reality is."
—TMA Session Seven: August 28, 1980

Not sure what you're saying. Is your understanding that there is one physical reality that we all agree upon? A single objective reality that we observe?

My understanding is that everybody's subconscious creates their own individual reality. There are as many individual physical realities as units of consciousness primarily focused in the physical, at all levels and gestalts, not humans only.

There are several quotes that I believe to support what I believe, but it is true that often we understand what we expect to understand

This is a good quote:

We will take your cat and his bug. Your cat created the bug that he saw. The bug that he saw was a different construction from the bug that was seen by either of you, and all three constructions were different from the bug's physical construction of himself. These bug constructions, by various means which we shall discuss, tallied in your camouflage space to an amazingly approximate degree.

However, they were not by any means identical, either in space, time, or physical bulk. Quite literally the cat's bug was larger and heavier in bulk, existed longer in his—that is the cat's—time, and also took up more space.

Your bug, Joseph, differed in actual physical construction also from Ruburt's. It was better detailed and more precisely drawn, smaller in size from either Ruburt's or the cat's, existed less in your camouflage time, and took up a measurably less amount of your space.

Your cat is also different, a completely different construction, for each of you. It is easier, perhaps, to understand if we first consider the difference between the bug's construction of the cat, and the cat's construction of the bug, before we go on.

In comparison with a human's construction of your cat, for example, the bug creates a limited one, but one that is nevertheless efficient and valid for his own purposes. To your way of thinking, the bug does not construct a whole cat.

(After resting, Willy was once again active, almost perversely so, it seemed. Giving up chasing bugs, he now was busily tearing a small carton apart in the living room closet; the noise was surprisingly loud and came close to interfering with my hearing Jane clearly.)

The bug's cat construction is a huge and terrifying animal-mountain sort of construction. However, the construction is endowed with what we may call physical properties of which you are unaware.

This is difficult to explain. A psychic coordination, a sensitive apathy, received by the bug as to the nature of the cat, creates about the bug's construction of the cat b-a-n-d-s in infrared, solid to both the cat and the bug. The bug then sees a gigantic but blurred, incomplete so to speak, cat image, which is surrounded by infrared solidity, which is significant to the bug in terms quite incomprehensible to you.

—TES2 Session 64 June 24, 1964

[Mark M]

This appears to be indicative of consensus:

'Actors visit casting agencies so that they know what plays need their services. In your dreams you visit "casting agencies." You are aware of the various plays being considered for physical production. In the dream state, then, often you familiarize yourself with dramas that are of a probable nature. If enough interest is shown, if enough actors apply, if enough resources are accumulated, the play will go on. When you are in other than your normally conscious state, you visit that creative inner agency in which all physical productions must have their beginning. You meet with others, who for their own reasons are interested in the same kind of drama. Following our analogy, the technicians, the actors, the writers all assemble — only in this case the result will be a live event rather than a televised one. There are disaster films being planned, educational programs, religious dramas. All of these will be encountered in full-blown physical reality.'

—Seth, NoME, Chapter 2: Session 815, December 17, 1977

[inavalan]

This appears to be indicative of consensus:

'Actors visit casting agencies ...'

—Seth, NoME, Chapter 2: Session 815, December 17, 1977

How do you believe that consensus to work? Do you have a model that you could present in a few lines? How did you come up with it?

[Mark M]

"If enough interest is shown, if enough actors apply, if enough resources are accumulated, the play will go on."

It's almost like a form of voting.

[inavalan]

"If enough interest is shown, if enough actors apply, if enough resources are accumulated, the play will go on."

It's almost like a form of voting.

Thanks. I thought you could explain it less metaphorically: who votes, how do they vote, who counts the votes, when does this happen, how is the voting result implemented, ...

You called it consensus, which isn't really voting, but more like negotiating. What does it happen when one's limiting beliefs are contradictory to another's.

There are units of consciousness, then gestalts over gestalts, ... Do you think there is an objective reality as a reference that all perceive?

Answering these, and other questions imply to have a hypothesis about what the physical reality is, what is that we perceive, even further: why we are here, what we are meant to do here.

I was / am interested if you could share what are you basing your views on: your interpretation of the Seth material, others' interpretations, another source, your reasoning, your intuition, a combination?

I don't intend to argue, or to convince you of my views. I was honestly trying to get a better feeling of where you're coming from, surely, only if you're interested in sharing more in these directions, and if you have the time.

For example, several people read the same Seth quote and understand different things, and I believe that's how it is supposed to be, how reality works. The way I see this, there is no reason to argue about whose interpretation is right, beyond a first exchange of opinions.

[Mark M]

Yours is quite the assignment.

Give me a D.



The "votes" are "tabulated" in the dream state.

If not enough interest is shown, if not enough actors apply, if not enough resources are accumulated, the play won't go on in the probability of concern.

[inavalan]

Yours is quite the assignment.

Give me a D.



The "votes" are "tabulated" in the dream state.

If not enough interest is shown, if not enough actors apply, if not enough resources are accumulated, the play won't go on in the probability of concern.

Ok. I see. I thought you dug a little deeper into these. I recommend it.

[Sena]

Not sure what you're saying. Is your understanding that there is one physical reality that we all agree upon? A single objective reality that we observe?

inavalan, how I see it is that, in creating reality, there are many things we agree on. For instance, having 21% oxygen in the atmosphere. A minority may prefer nearly 100% oxygen, but then there would be lots of fires and explosions. The agreement happens mostly telepathically and, as Mark has said, mainly in the dream state.
There are some things people do not agree on, such as how much CO2 they want to produce.

[inavalan]

Not sure what you're saying. Is your understanding that there is one physical reality that we all agree upon? A single objective reality that we observe?

inavalan, how I see it is that, in creating reality, there are many things we agree on. For instance, having 21% oxygen in the atmosphere. A minority may prefer nearly 100% oxygen, but then there would be lots of fires and explosions. The agreement happens mostly telepathically and, as Mark has said, mainly in the dream state.
There are some things people do not agree on, such as how much CO2 they want to produce.

So, in you opinion, is there an objective reality that we all observe?

    I believe that there isn't.

Also, when you say "people", in my mind there is a lack of clarity of who / what are you talking about.

    I believe reality is created not only by humans.

The way you seem to talk about that consensus, and from your example, I don't see how you fit probable realities into the model of the physical reality you adhere to. What's happening if you don't believe what others believe, you exercise your free will, and make a different choice than that consensus.

     I don't think that there is such a consensus, but more of a perception at inner senses level of others individual realities that is filtered / distorted by one's individual beliefs.

[Mark M]

My understanding is, per Seth, there is indeed no objective reality.

The variance in bug perception described by Seth between Jane, Rob, and the cat that was playing with it is an example where, to the extent there is agreement, that is based on telepathy.

And Seth noted the differences in bug "versions" between Jane, Rob, and the cat.

[Sena]

So, in you opinion, is there an objective reality that we all observe?

    I believe that there isn't.

I prefer the term "consensus reality" to objective reality, but I would say that the existence of consciousnesses is objective reality; it is not imaginary. The opposite of objective is subjectuve. To say that all reality is subjective is nihilistic. I am not a nihilist.

The word nihilism does not appear to have been in Seth's vocabulary.

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

Nihilism from Latin nihil 'nothing', and English -ism) is a philosophy, or family of views within philosophy, that rejects general or fundamental aspects of human existence, such as objective truth, knowledge, morality, values or meaning.

The Buddhist concept of Nirvana (non-existence) is related to nihilism, and Seth did have some strong words to say about Nirvana:

"In a recent ESP class session, however, Seth said: "There is nothing more deadly than nirvana. At least your Christian concepts give you some twilight hopes of a stifling and boring paradise, where your individuality can at least express itself, and nirvana extends no such comfort. Instead it offers you the annihilation of your personality, in a bliss that destroys the integrity of your being. Run from such bliss!""
—NoPR Chapter 9: Session 638, February 7, 1973

[inavalan]

Often involuntarily, we give the same words slightly different meanings ... so misunderstandings are likely. We may be using cliche words that others don't understand.

When I wrote "objective reality" in my previous posts, I meant a version of the "physical reality" that is independent of our perceptions, meaning a single cat, a single bug, ... that are observed by all the other observers in that room. I didn't necessarily mean an "objective reality" made of matter, or of consciousness, but I called it "objective" in the sense that it would exist independent of its observers. It was somehow created, and there it is (!). I don't believe this to be the case.

I contrast "objective reality" with "subjective individual realities", created by each observer.

The way I understand the "physical reality", each participant in it, be it a human, a cat, a bug, a cell, ... creates its unique version of a portion of the "physical reality", this meaning that there isn't a "physical reality" outside the totality of all those perceptions / creations.

It is on the same lines with the reality we experience while dreaming, which most people wouldn't "dream" of calling "objective reality". Both could be called a virtual realities.

The way I use the word "consensus", I don't believe that there is a physical reality that is the result of a consensus between all the observers. I don't think that at an inner level, a part of our personalities negotiate the next "slide" of physical reality, and reach a "consensus".

For quite a long while I exchanged opinions about reality with people who subscribe to non-dualistic ideas, of various flavors, and we couldn't find almost any bridges, so browsing a few posts here, I thought I should re-join the forum to converse with like-minded people, but so far I find communicating to be quite tedious here too. Those people were sure they know the Truth, several of them having had "realizations", "self-realizations", and such.

[inavalan]

So, in you opinion, is there an objective reality that we all observe?

    I believe that there isn't.

I prefer the term "consensus reality" to objective reality, but I would say that the existence of consciousnesses is objective reality; it is not imaginary. The opposite of objective is subjectuve. To say that all reality is subjective is nihilistic. I am not a nihilist.

The word nihilism does not appear to have been in Seth's vocabulary.

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

Nihilism from Latin nihil 'nothing', and English -ism) is a philosophy, or family of views within philosophy, that rejects general or fundamental aspects of human existence, such as objective truth, knowledge, morality, values or meaning.

The Buddhist concept of Nirvana (non-existence) is related to nihilism, and Seth did have some strong words to say about Nirvana:

"In a recent ESP class session, however, Seth said: "There is nothing more deadly than nirvana. At least your Christian concepts give you some twilight hopes of a stifling and boring paradise, where your individuality can at least express itself, and nirvana extends no such comfort. Instead it offers you the annihilation of your personality, in a bliss that destroys the integrity of your being. Run from such bliss!""
—NoPR Chapter 9: Session 638, February 7, 1973

Not sure why you brought "nihilism" in discussion ... You may have jumped to some incorrect conclusions from what I wrote (?). I didn't infer that you'd subscribe to that either, if anything maybe the opposite,  "objectivist" to some degree.

Now your wiki definition of "nihilism", as most scientific arguments too, are kind of at odds with the Seth material ... Aren't they?

Re-reading your post, are you saying that you believe that "there is an objective truth" that we can perceive? I don't think so. Could you give an example? The oxygen concentration from your previous post is just camouflage, has nothing to do with consensus, and it isn't an objective truth outside the "physical reality".

We seem to be far apart in our models of reality.

[Sena]

Those people were sure they know the Truth, several of them having had "realizations", "self-realizations", and such.

inavalan, no such luck for me! I am not self-realized. Those who claim to be self--realized say it was a result of intensive meditation. I have not tried that.

This is Seth on meditation:

"A 15-minute daily meditation period would be excellent for three months. Then 3 weeks of no meditation; a month of half-hour meditation, followed by a week of no meditation; and for a year a daily schedule of no more than a half-hour meditation period, these periods to be regular however."
—TES3 Session 90 September 21, 1964

[LarryH]

"New computer modeling of the early Solar System has found that there were probably more planets orbiting the Sun billions of years ago..."
https://www.unknowncountry.com/headline-news/planet-nine-may-have-smaller-siblings-as-company-in-the-dark-reaches-of-the-solar-system/

[chasman]

this might be fun to skim.
I just skipped to the end, where they calculate how many planets there could be.

possible reality as compared to probable.

https://www.livescience.com/maximum-number-of-planets-orbit-sun?utm_source=SmartBrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=368B3745-DDE0-4A69-A2E8-62503D85375D&utm_content=F890E6F2-E39C-4669-AFBF-6F13B37F105A&utm_term=13bf801b-e450-49bb-80d0-15b6078fa24d