Seth says that the number of realities is infinite:
"There is no one reality. There are many, in fact infinite, realities. There is no beginning and end. When beginnings and endings are spoken of, the implication is always there, that there must be but one reality, and that it must have a beginning in time and an ending in time. I have tried to explain the distortions which make such questions seem intrinsically valid, but it is only from your own perspective that you think in terms of beginning and end, and only because of your self-adopted limitations that you continue along these lines. Realities merge, one into the other. Personalities, or any type of individualized energy, may pass through various realities. The appearance of energy in one form could be said to end in that form were it not for the existence of the spacious present, in which all realities are simultaneous. I could therefore with some justification let you continue to believe in beginnings and endings, and leave the more complicated explanations out, but this is not my way. And unless I am forced to do so, I do not like to water down information to make it more palatable. It is true that the pyramid gestalts of which I have spoken can be said to merge into what you may refer to as a unitary and even sublime being, but this is grossly simplified." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 3 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)
https://amzn.eu/c2XychM
This Seth teaching is probably consistent with the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics, put forward by Hugh Everett in 1957.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
It makes sense, we each live in our own reality while sharing it with others. I'm reminded of the "how many glasses of water" idea as an analogy.
Quote from: dougdi (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18488#msg18488)
It makes sense, we each live in our own reality while sharing it with others. I'm reminded of the "how many glasses of water" idea as an analogy.
dougdi, thanks for your comment. It may be that every decision we make takes us into a different reality. Those close to us usually accompany us into that reality, but occasionally they don't. Seth says that telepathy goes on all the time.
"Telepathy does not operate at the level of the ego, although its actions may protrude into the domain of the ego. Telepathy operates within the inner self, within various levels, different levels of the subconscious, where the ideas of separation and limitations of self are not nearly so limiting."
—TES3 Session 121 January 13, 1965
"So are thoughts constantly sent outward, and other projections which we have not yet discussed. Therefore as the individual sends out these projections, so does he receive the projections of others. As you know, telepathy operates constantly beneath the dictates of the ego, and so is your intellectual climate formed."
—TES4 Session 193 September 27, 1965
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18486#msg18486)
Seth says that the number of realities is infinite:
Hi All,
I'm always amazed when I actually think about just how huge the number "infinity" really is.
First let's think about one trillion; that's 1 followed by 12 zeros. For many of us, that's a really big number and in fact it really is. But then there's an even bigger number. A googol. A googol is 1 followed by 100 zeros. Now, that number is really huge.
But wait, there's more. There's a number that's even much bigger than a googol. This number is called a googolplex and it is 10 raised to a google of zeros.
To put this into perspective, Wikipedia says that a typical book containing 400 pages, printed with 50 zeros per line and 50 lines per page, would contain about 10 raised to the 6, zeros per book.
In this first book the number of zeros in a trillion would be covered in the first, one quarter of a line, of the first line, on the first page of this first book.
Furthermore, in this same book the number of zeros in a googol would be covered in the first two lines, of the first page of this first book.
However, it would take 10 raised to the 94 power, number of books like this, just to contain all the zeros that are found in a googolplex and that's just staggering.
Here's the thing. The number infinity, is even way bigger than a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googleplex of zeros.
Finally, the thing is, Seth is saying that there are an infinite amount of "realities", not just atoms or not just molecules, but realities, and that's just really hard to fathom.
-jbseth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18490#msg18490)
I'm always amazed when I actually think about just how huge the number "infinity" really is.
How about infinity plus one. When my sister an I would argue, we always used infinity plus one to stop the argument. ;D
Hi umsaak, Hi All,
That's a good one usmaak, you win. :)
-jbserh
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18490#msg18490)
Finally, the thing is, Seth is saying that there are an infinite amount of "realities", not just atoms or not just molecules, but realities, and that's just really hard to fathom.
jbseth, yes, that is the main point. That is what makes creating one's own reality a possibility.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18486#msg18486)
Seth says that the number of realities is infinite:
This is one of the things about Seth that sends me down a mental path of no return. And one of the things I think about when someone criticizes me for not being in alignment with the OLC (or as it's called today, mainstream media).
I love the idea, while I can't completely fathom it. It's like contemplating infinity. Plus one or not.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18496#msg18496)
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18486#msg18486)
Seth says that the number of realities is infinite:
This is one of the things about Seth that sends me down a mental path of no return. And one of the things I think about when someone criticizes me for not being in alignment with the OLC (or as it's called today, mainstream media).
I love the idea, while I can't completely fathom it. It's like contemplating infinity. Plus one or not.
Most of this stuff makes me feel dumb. I understand about 10% of what the books say. ;D
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18497#msg18497)
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18496#msg18496)
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18486#msg18486)
Seth says that the number of realities is infinite:
This is one of the things about Seth that sends me down a mental path of no return. And one of the things I think about when someone criticizes me for not being in alignment with the OLC (or as it's called today, mainstream media).
I love the idea, while I can't completely fathom it. It's like contemplating infinity. Plus one or not.
Most of this stuff makes me feel dumb. I understand about 10% of what the books say. ;D
usmaak/Deb,
Yes, I am still trying to work it out. One of the questions is, is Seth referring to subjective reality or objective reality? To put it in another way, if I make a choice about doing something, I go into that particular reality, but what about other people? This is why Seth's teaching on telepathy is so important. If I am telepathically connected to certain people, I hope that they will concur with my choice and will go with me into that same reality. Then it becomes objective reality for me and the people I am connected to telepathically. What happens if no living person accompanies me into the reality I choose? The result could be my death!! (Death meaning going into a non-physical reality).
"
Telepathy could be called, indeed, the glue that holds the physical universe in precarious position, so that anyone can agree upon what a particular object is, or where it is at any given time. " (from "The Early Sessions: Book 3 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)
Infinity is not a number. So for instance, there is no such thing as "infinity plus one". You cannot divide infinity by another number. Seth cannot know that there are infinite realities, though he can know that "for all practical purposes", the number of realities is so high that compared to infinity, he--or we--will never know the difference.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18498#msg18498)
Yes, I am still trying to work it out. One of the questions is, is Seth referring to subjective reality or objective reality? To put it in another way, if I make a choice about doing something, I go into that particular reality, but what about other people?
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18499#msg18499)
Seth cannot know that there are infinite realities,
Hi Sena, Hi LarryH, Hi All,
OK. We're really getting into some interesting issues here. I'll just throw in my two cents worth here, just to share some thoughts that I have on some of this.
Sena, you asked the question, what about the other people? Well, it is my understanding that Seth tells us that we create these other people. Here I'm referring to Chapter 10 of "The Seth Material", where Seth is telling us about the number of Marks (Bill Macdonells) in the room.
Here Seth says:
"While Mark creates his own physical image, you do not see it. At this time there are three entirely different Marks in this room."
Further down he says:
"There is the Mark which Mark has created, an actual physical construction. There is another, created by you, Joseph. There are two more physical Marks, one create by Ruburt, and one by your cat. If another person entered the room, there would be still another physical Mark."
"In this room then, there are four physical Ruburts, four physical Josephs and four physical cats. There are indeed four rooms."
On the previous page, Seth tells us about a glass that both Mark and Joseph sees.
In regards to this glass, Seth says the following:
"None of you sees the glass that the others see,..."
Then further down he says:
"Now, Mark, you cannot see Joseph's glass, nor can he see yours,"
Finally he says:
"Physical objects cannot exist unless they exist in a definite perspective and space continuum. But each individual creates his own space continuum..."
I think that this specific concept of Seth's is huge. Each one of us creates our very own space continuum. Furthermore, each one of us also creates all of the other physical beings that exist in our reality.
Now, this is my (jbseth's) understanding of how this works. Our inner self is often aware of what our ego consciousness is thinking and doing. It also sometimes sends us thoughts and ideas (these are received as insights and intuitions, when we are open enough to receive them). Our inner self is also in telepathic communication with all other inner self's. Then, with all of this information, it is our inner self who creates both us and all of the other physical beings that exist in our space continuum. It is us, our inner self who actually creates the physical reality and the events, that we, our physical body and ego consciousness, then experience as physical reality.
LarryH, In regards to infinity, I agree, infinity is not a number. Instead, according to Wikipedia:.
"Infinity represents something that is boundless or endless, or else something that is larger than any real or natural number."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
Seth also talks about "open" and "closed" systems. He tells us that there are no closed systems, there are only those that we think are closed. He also tells us that physical reality is a camouflaged system, and he seems to imply that it is a closed system.
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
I'm not saying that I think you're wrong here, because I don't know that you are. But it has also occurred to me that maybe your statement is only valid within the "camouflage" physical world closed system that we presently appear to exist within.
Maybe this is just one of the many root assumptions of this camouflage" physical world. Here I'm talking about root assumptions like, time is string of sequential moments that goes from past to present to future, objects take up physical space and exist independent of us, cause and effect are legitimate, etc.
Maybe Seth's statement is valid, outside of this camouflage" physical world closed system.
Finally in regards to the question of subjective and objective realities here's some thought's from Seth when he was responding to a professor of physics. Here, Seth clearly seems to be suggesting that the subjective (psychological) universe is the main or dominant one, while the objective (real or physical) universe is not the dominant one.
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18501#msg18501)
"Physical objects cannot exist unless they exist in a definite perspective and space continuum. But each individual creates his own space continuum..."
I think that this specific concept of Seth's is huge. Each one of us creates our very own space continuum. Furthermore, each one of us also creates all of the other physical beings that exist in our reality.
I don't understand what it is you're saying? That all of the people in my world are my creations and not their own? All of the people in my life are created by me?
I'm reading The Seth Material for the first (at least I think the first) time and I read this material last night. I understand, in a way, what the material is getting at. I particularly liked the material about the glass and how we each see a different glass.
"None of you sees the glass that the others see. ... Each of the three of you creates your own glass, in your own personal perspective. Therefore you have three different physical glasses here, but each one exists in an entirely different space continuum."
"Now, Mark, you cannot see Joseph's glass, nor can he see yours," Seth said. "This can be proven mathematically, and scientists are already working with the problem, though they do not understand the principles behind it. Now there is an infinitesimal point where Mark's perspective and Ruburt's overlap. Again, theoretically, if you could perceive that point, you could actually each see the other two physical glasses.
Roberts, Jane. The Seth Material (p. 130). New Awareness Network, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
But when it comes to people, this doesn't make much sense. I'm pretty sure my wife is an actual person and not just my creation.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18502#msg18502)
I'm pretty sure my wife is an actual person and not just my creation.
usmaak, my take on this issue is that the psychological reality behind the physical reality that we seem to share is such that the wife that your wife creates and the wife that you create are by agreement so similar that they appear indistinguishable. Another way of putting it is that the framework 2 "probable" wife is "created" by each of you, likely with slightly different characteristics. In terms of quantum physics, it is as if the potential in the wave-form wife is collapsed by each of you into what each of you experiences as your wife. Your wife's experienced reality of herself is different from your experienced reality of her.
I can say from experience that my ex's memory of events sometimes differs considerably from mine, so one explanation is that her experience of events if just as valid as mine, having been experienced in a different "past" timeline, as one example of how this might be the case.
Einstein had a problem with this aspect of quantum physics, once saying that he refused to believe that the moon did not exist if he stopped looking at it. But if we think of the moon as a potential for those who are not looking at it and a reality for those who are, there is nothing in the way of each of us creating our own moon, albeit with considerable agreement between the billions of moons that humans can create.
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18503#msg18503)
I can say from experience that my ex's memory of events sometimes differs considerably from mine, so one explanation is that her experience of events if just as valid as mine, having been experienced in a different "past" timeline, as one example of how this might be the case.
Einstein had a problem with this aspect of quantum physics, once saying that he refused to believe that the moon did not exist if he stopped looking at it. But if we think of the moon as a potential for those who are not looking at it and a reality for those who are, there is nothing in the way of each of us creating our own moon, albeit with considerable agreement between the billions of moons that humans can create.
Or, it could just be that the memory is fallible and that sometimes people don't remember things the same way. Or they remember emotional events as guided by their emotions.
I struggle with Seth's explanation. The idea that each of us forms different worlds that interact perfectly, so that there's no way to tell that they're separate sounds incredibly complex. I have a room with a cabinet that has 100 trinkets in it. I can bring someone in the room, point out the cabinet and ask them to name the trinkets. They will see and name every one of them. Per Seth, there are actually 200 trinkets. My trinkets and my friend's Now extend that to the world. I walk down an aisle with a friend that has hundreds of products. He can go down the aisle and name every one of them. It just seems more likely that those products exist and me and my friend are both looking at the same products and not our own versions of them. Seth says that telepathy always works to make these things true. That must be some next level technology. I can only imagine the amount of processing power to keep it all straight.
Einstein might just be right. I remember reading somewhere in Seth, or maybe it was somewhere else, that what we aren't looking at ceases to exist. I am sitting in a chair right now. I know that behind me is a window. I can feel the breeze on the back of my neck. I feel that it's cold out and that I really need to consider closing the window. The window is there because I can feel the results of the window. If I turn around, I know that it will be there. Just like it always is.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18502#msg18502)
But when it comes to people, this doesn't make much sense. I'm pretty sure my wife is an actual person and not just my creation.
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
Yea, I personally think that this is one of the most profound concepts that Seth talks about, and let's face it, he has a lot of profound concepts.
First of all, I'd like to clarify a few points.
This is Seth's idea, not mine. If you don't agree with it, if you don't like it and / or if you don't accept it, that won't bother me in any way. We all have our very own unique ideas and beliefs about things. However, what I will try to do here, is explain, as best I can, what I think Seth is actually saying here.
Let's go back to the situation where Bill Macdonnel (Mark), visits Jane (Ruburt) and Rob (Joseph), at their apartment where they had a cat. Picture this. In their apartment, there's Bill, Rob, Jane who's channeling Seth and their cat.
In ways similar to the glass scenario, Bill from his perspective and space continuum, creates himself, Bill, a real physical person. In addition to this, he also creates Rob, Jane, and the cat, all of which are also real.
Now, along with this, Rob from his perspective and space continuum, creates himself, Rob, again a real physical person. He also creates Bill, Jane and the cat, all of which are also real.
Both Jane and the cat do likewise.
So, in this case, we end up with 4 individual perspectives and their associated space continuums. One for each, Bill, Rob, Jane and the cat.
Next, if you're like me, you're probably wondering, well then, if this is really true, then who actually creates each one of these individual perspectives and their associated space continuums. Because I'm certainly not aware of doing this myself.
In other parts of the Seth information, Seth tells us that it's our inner self who creates the physical reality that our outer ego deals with.
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
Thus, I think that it is your inner self who creates your individual perspective and your associated space continuum. I also think that it is my inner self who creates my individual perspective and my associated space continuum.
In other areas of the Seth information he also talks about what he calls "primary constructions" and "secondary constructions". There are only a few places where he actually talks about these concepts and some of his explanations about what these are, are somewhat confusing. In TES2, S71, he gives us the following definitions.
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
From this then, I take it that when a man creates himself, in his individual perspective and space continuum, then he's created a primary construction. On the other hand, when he creates someone else, in his individual perspective and space continuum, then he's created a secondary construction.
Thus when you create yourself, in your individual perspective and space continuum, then you've created a primary construction. On the other hand, when you create someone else, like your wife, in your individual perspective and space continuum, then you've created a secondary construction.
On the other hand, when your wife creates herself, in her individual perspective and space continuum, then she's created a primary construction. On the other hand, when she creates someone else, like you, in her individual perspective and space continuum, then she's created a secondary construction.
Does this mean that a secondary personality isn't "physical"?
No. In talking about the 4 Marks in the "The Seth Material", Chapter 10, Seth clearly states that all 4 of these Marks are "physical".
I personally think that there are other Seth concepts that are inter-related to these two ideas of: 1) an individual who creates their own individual perspective and space continuum, and 2) the idea of primary and secondary constructions.
One of these inter-related concepts is probable realities and another has to do with physical realities like Framework 1 verses subjective realities like Framework 2.
If you're thinking that all of this seem really complicated and confusing, then you should know that not the only one who feels this way.
-jbseth
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18499#msg18499)
Seth cannot know that there are infinite realities, though he can know that "for all practical purposes", the number of realities is so high that compared to infinity, he--or we--will never know the difference.
Larry, I am not a physicist, but there seems to be a scientific view that an infinite number of "worlds" is possible:
"Modern inflationary cosmology suggests that we exist
inside an infinite statistically uniform space. If so,
then
any given finite system is replicated an infinite number
of times throughout this space."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.1066.pdf
"This is where we get back to a version of Schrödinger's idea. In the Everett version of the cat puzzle, there is a single cat up to the point where the device is triggered. Then the entire Universe splits in two. Similarly, as DeWitt pointed out, an electron in a distant galaxy confronted with a choice of two (or more) quantum paths causes the entire Universe, including ourselves, to split.
In the Deutsch–Schrödinger version, there is an infinite variety of universes (a Multiverse) corresponding to all possible solutions to the quantum wave function."
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deutsch
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18504#msg18504)
I struggle with Seth's explanation. The idea that each of us forms different worlds that interact perfectly, so that there's no way to tell that they're separate sounds incredibly complex.
usmaak, it only works if you accept Seth's idea of continuous unconscious telepathy. This means that you and your wife have a consensus (most of the time!) about the kind of world she and you continuously create.
"In your system of reality you are learning what mental energy is, and how to use it.
You do this by constantly transforming your thoughts and emotions into physical form. You are supposed to get a clear picture of your inner development by perceiving the exterior environment. What seems to be a perception, an objective concrete event, independent and apart from you the perceiver, is instead the physical materialization of the perceiver's own inner emotions, energy and mental environment."
—TES9 Session 469 March 19, 1969
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18501#msg18501)
Sena, you asked the question, what about the other people? Well, it is my understanding that Seth tells us that we create these other people. Here I'm referring to Chapter 10 of "The Seth Material", where Seth is telling us about the number of Marks (Bill Macdonells) in the room.
Here Seth says:
"While Mark creates his own physical image, you do not see it. At this time there are three entirely different Marks in this room."
jbseth, I agree that I create the physical reality of other people in MY world (my reality). I do NOT, however, create the consciousnesses of other people. Every consciousness is a manifestation of All That Is.
I found a scientific paper which seems to fit with Seth's idea of "multiple actors co-creating a world":
"[The] fact of the world consisting of multiple actors who cocreate the
world within which they act has important implications for how we think about
the very concept of a "decision," let alone how we conceptualize the decision-
maker or more generally, the self."
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11299-020-00241-5.pdf
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18506#msg18506)
Larry, I am not a physicist, but there seems to be a scientific view that an infinite number of "worlds" is possible
That something is possible does not prove that it is true. My point is that we cannot truly know that anything is infinite. We can assume such, but to "know" it is to be capable of experiencing it or somehow proving it, and I just don't see how such proof or experience is possible beyond a mathematical concept.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18505#msg18505)
Let's go back to the situation where Bill Macdonnel (Mark), visits Jane (Ruburt) and Rob (Joseph), at their apartment where they had a cat. Picture this. In their apartment, there's Bill, Rob, Jane who's channeling Seth and their cat.
In ways similar to the glass scenario, Bill from his perspective and space continuum, creates himself, Bill, a real physical person. In addition to this, he also creates Rob, Jane, and the cat, all of which are also real.
Now, along with this, Rob from his perspective and space continuum, creates himself, Rob, again a real physical person. He also creates Bill, Jane and the cat, all of which are also real.
Both Jane and the cat do likewise.
So, in this case, we end up with 4 individual perspectives and their associated space continuums. One for each, Bill, Rob, Jane and the cat.
Ok. So if I am in a room with three other people and a cat and one of the people says something to me, is it my version of the person that it talking to me or is it their version of the person that is talking to me? In this context, does this explain how someone can say something and I hear it differently? Because in this world, there's lots of "that's not what I said."
I often wonder how much material like this is distorted by Jane. These are very deep concepts and maybe there's no good way to convey something that is so foreign. Perhaps it's just a best effort. Or perhaps it's not all that deep to most but I struggle with it.
Either way, I apologize for any derailing of this thread. I appreciate all of the replies.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18511#msg18511)
I often wonder how much material like this is distorted by Jane. These are very deep concepts and maybe there's no good way to convey something that is so foreign.
usmaak, I agree that the Seth teachings did not give us "the whole truth". We need to continue looking for the truth in our lives and in our reading.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18511#msg18511)
In this context, does this explain how someone can say something and I hear it differently?
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
Actually, I think that your statement above is pretty close to the point that Seth was trying to make with all of this discussion regarding the number of glasses and people.
I went back this morning and took a look at what is written in both "The Seth Material" and in TES2. TES2 is the Early Session book that contains this session (Session 68) and some others (Session 66, 69 and 71) that are associated with it.
It appears to me that one of the major points that Seth was trying to make with all of this has to do with why we sometimes, seem to see differences in the objects (such as a glass) that we see. He appears to be telling us that the reason why we see differences isn't because we are in a different mood, for example. The reason why we see differences is because we each create our very own glass in our own space continuum.
He's what he says specifically about this in Session 68:
I am going to tie this in with material dealing with the differences that you seem to see in one particular object. This difference is deeper than you imagine. It is not to be explained by saying that one man sees a given object differently than another because of a particular mood that may assail him.
He creates an entirely different object, which his own outer senses then perceive.
What I'll do here is create some spoilers for the information in various sessions. Some of the information in these session go into more detail than what Jane wrote about in her book, "The Seth Material". In some of these details, Seth makes some other points that are related to this material, that didn't seem to be captured in "The Seth Material.
For example, it turns out that it was in Session 66, where Seth first started talking about the glass and how each person creates his own glass in his own space continuum. Following this discussion in this session, Seth says the following.
Now understanding this, you should be able to see how other planes, other reality continuums, can exist simultaneously with your own, and be unperceived consciously.
In rereading this material, I think that Seth was actually trying to explain some other concepts, such as in his statement, directly above.
A lot of the material in the spoiler for Session 68 is redundant with what Seth said in "The Seth Material". However, some of the information at the very end of this spoiler, Rob's television performer comment, and Seth's respond to this, are new.
TES2, S66:
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
TES2, S68:
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
TES2, S69:
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
I have one final thought that I'd like to share about all of this. As I recall, (and right now I can't give you a session number for this, because I don't remember specifically where he said this; it might be in "Seth Speaks") Seth said something to the effect of the following.
His ideas are difficult to comprehend. However it is in the nature of trying to grasp these concepts that opens up our minds and this breaks them free of limiting beliefs. Furthermore, it is this opening up of our minds that allows us to finally comprehend what Seth is telling us.
LarryH, Deb, Sena, T. M., leidl, or anyone else here, does this comment that I just made, sound familiar or ring a bell with any of you?
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18513#msg18513)
His ideas are difficult to comprehend. However it is in the nature of trying to grasp these concepts that opens up our minds and this breaks them free of limiting beliefs. Furthermore, it is this opening up of our minds that allows us to finally comprehend what Seth is telling us.
LarryH, Deb, Sena, T. M., leidl, or anyone else here, does this comment that I just made, sound familiar or ring a bell with any of you?
I don't recall him saying that, but it does resonate with me.
This has me wondering about how some people believe in something so thoroughly that to them is is 100% real. Most of the population sees something like this as ridiculous but to the believer, it isn't ridiculous and not believing in it is beyond comprehension. It's tough to come up with a specific example without sounding condescending or insulting.
So just from a hypothetical perspective, could the reason that they believe it exists be because for them, it actually does exist. It is not something that I see because I don't believe it. It is not real to me but it is real to them. Kind of like what's described in this part of the spoiler above.
For reasons that we will mention later, the cat did sense the apparition. Now, I have told you that there are many factors involved in the construction of matter, and I have explained that telepathy and many other factors which I have listed are important.
In this case such clues were not given you. Therefore the construction was only seen by the one person to whom the inner clues were given. The construction was then formed, more or less in faithful replica to the inner data received by Mark.
I don't even know if this makes sense and I am having a hard time explaining my thinking. There's a lot of conflict in this world about what is real and what isn't. Things get posted and then someone turns around and says how stupid it is and of course it isn't true. Then you have groups of people battling it out to determine what is true.
Is all of it actually true? Because someone believes in something so thoroughly while someone else thinks it is silly, does that thing actually exist for the believer and not exist for the person who doesn't believe?
I swear I am not drunk. This is my actual attempt at a coherent thought. ;)
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18511#msg18511)
Ok. So if I am in a room with three other people and a cat and one of the people says something to me, is it my version of the person that it talking to me or is it their version of the person that is talking to me? In this context, does this explain how someone can say something and I hear it differently? Because in this world, there's lots of "that's not what I said."
What's also interesting to me (adding to this), is that Seth says we are constantly communicating telepathically, and so you would think this would clear up the differences. But we are here to learn, and currently our focus is on input from our outer senses, and we ignore anything else. I feel people are always interpreting input based on their beliefs and biases (filters)—and emotions. At risk of sounding sexist, back in the day my view of everything was totally different when I was PMS-ing, which caused insecurities and hyper-sensitivity. Things would look different another day.
Quote from: Seth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18513#msg18513)
I am going to tie this in with material dealing with the differences that you seem to see in one particular object. This difference is deeper than you imagine. It is not to be explained by saying that one man sees a given object differently than another because of a particular mood that may assail him.
He creates an entirely different object, which his own outer senses then perceive.
I feel Session 68 is right on. Just a trivial example: I long ago (before Seth) realized that there were times I'd go shopping (let's say, for clothes), and everything I saw in a store was dumpy, ugly, uninspiring. At some point I realized it wasn't the store that was the problem, but my attitude. Because... I'd go back a few days later and suddenly everything looked different, even though the merchandise was the same. Now I recognize it for what it is and cut my losses.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18513#msg18513)
His ideas are difficult to comprehend. However it is in the nature of trying to grasp these concepts that opens up our minds and this breaks them free of limiting beliefs. Furthermore, it is this opening up of our minds that allows us to finally comprehend what Seth is telling us.
I don't recall Seth saying the concepts open our minds/breaks free from limiting beliefs, but he acknowledged over and over that some of the concepts he shared are difficult for us to understand, given the limitations of our perspective here in F1. That makes complete sense to me. The fact that we discuss the concepts as much as we do, tells me we intuit that what he says has validity and we are trying to understand rather than deny it.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18515#msg18515)
This has me wondering about how some people believe in something so thoroughly that to them is is 100% real. Most of the population sees something like this as ridiculous but to the believer, it isn't ridiculous and not believing in it is beyond comprehension. It's tough to come up with a specific example without sounding condescending or insulting.
Just look at political beliefs if you want a huge gap in beliefs and perceived reality. I won't go into it because I don't want politics on this forum (I feel it could only drive people apart, with no resolution), but I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions.
I recently came to the conclusion that politics (in America) is the new religion.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18516#msg18516)
I recently came to the conclusion that politics (in America) is the new religion.
And if there's anything that I can't stand, it's religion.
I was thinking of the deep divide between the two major political parties when I was making my comments, but I didn't want to mention it because I avoid discussing politics whenever possible and I do agree that this isn't the place and it does drive people to their own opposing corners.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18513#msg18513)
However it is in the nature of trying to grasp these concepts that opens up our minds and this breaks them free of limiting beliefs. Furthermore, it is this opening up of our minds that allows us to finally comprehend what Seth is telling us.
LarryH, Deb, Sena, T. M., leidl, or anyone else here, does this comment that I just made, sound familiar or ring a bell with any of you?
I feel like I'm in an episode of "Name That Tune." :-)
I kind of doubt this is what you're looking for, jbseth, but your above comment reminds me of what teachers of meditation say about those meditations where your mind will simply not quiet. Your brain goes off on a tangent for five full minutes before you even realize it has, and that keeps happening for, like, the whole meditation. You think you're hopeless and will never get this. According to the meditation teachers, these can be the most valuable meditations of all. It is not about getting it perfectly. Even many long time meditators say their minds are abuzz 90% of the time. They still benefit!
Practicing quieting the mind is what is valuable; not just quieting the mind.
Trying to get your mind around Seth's ideas is what is valuable; not just getting them. Trying to get our minds around his ideas puts cracks in the sealed egg of our belief systems, if you'll pardon an Easter metaphor.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18515#msg18515)
There's a lot of conflict in this world about what is real and what isn't. Things get posted and then someone turns around and says how stupid it is and of course it isn't true. Then you have groups of people battling it out to determine what is true.
Is all of it actually true? Because someone believes in something so thoroughly while someone else thinks it is silly, does that thing actually exist for the believer and not exist for the person who doesn't believe?
I was thinking about this earlier today. If our beliefs create our reality, and billions of people believe Jesus died and resurrected, then how can Seth say something else happened? Haven't those people created a reality where Jesus died and resurrected?
jbseth's post that makes the distinction between primary and secondary creations really helped clarify this for me. Thanks, jbseth.
"A primary construction is a psychic gestalt, formed into matter by a consciousness of itself.
Secondary physical constructions are those created by a consciousness of its conception of other consciousnesses, from data received through telepathy and other means."
Could primary constructions roughly correlate with objective reality, and secondary constructions correlate roughly with subjective reality?
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18515#msg18515)
This has me wondering about how some people believe in something so thoroughly that to them is is 100% real. Most of the population sees something like this as ridiculous but to the believer, it isn't ridiculous and not believing in it is beyond comprehension. It's tough to come up with a specific example without sounding condescending or insulting.
So just from a hypothetical perspective, could the reason that they believe it exists be because for them, it actually does exist. It is not something that I see because I don't believe it. It is not real to me but it is real to them. Kind of like what's described in this part of the spoiler above.
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
I think I understand what you are trying to get at but I could be wrong (boy how wishy-washy is that)
Let me address it this way. I'll give you a couple of examples from what Seth had to say.
1)
When Jane first started to channel Seth, she didn't believe in the concept of reincarnation. However, according to Seth, reincarnation is a fact. Somewhere within the Seth information he said something to Jane or someone else that indicated that it didn't matter whether you believed in reincarnation or not, this wasn't going to change the fact that reincarnation was going to happen, whether you liked it or not.
So here, in this example, I'd say that belief didn't impact the outcome.
2)
In NOPR, Seth talks about beliefs and their effect on us. He tells us that if we focus our attention on something, good or bad, the focus of our attention can materialize the object or event into our lives. This is the reason why he tells us not to focus our attention upon negative ideas and events that we don't want to experience because by doing so we can materialize them into our lives. In one of the TES books, he tells the story about a trip or vacation that Jane and Rob participated in. Rob was worried about how much oil their car was using. Seth told Rob to let go of his worries. Rob did this and on their way back home, Rob seemed to have experienced much less problems with the car.
So here, I'd say that in this example, belief does impact the outcome.
Seth does say that our belief in things can is does affect us significantly.
-jbseth
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18518#msg18518)
Could primary constructions roughly correlate with objective reality, and secondary constructions correlate roughly with subjective reality?
Hi leidl, Hi All,
Hey, I liked your "Easter" metaphor, that was cool. :)
Maybe, but I did notice that in this case, Seth seems to be continuously pointing out that these other Mark's, other Rob's, and other Jane's are "physical"; which seems to imply that they are all part of objective reality.
I've also noticed that one of the differences between primary and secondary constructions, has to do with the whole self. The primary construction having to do with a construction of the whole self. The secondary construction doesn't have this relationship to the whole self.
However he does share some interesting comments having to do with an example of an apparition and a dying brother and the differences between these primary and secondary constructions. To be honest, in this example, Seth indicates that the dying brother would be constructed as a "primary" construction and I don't understand why, he's not a secondary construction instead.
https://findingseth.com/q/session:253+'primary+constructions'/
-jbseth
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18518#msg18518)
I was thinking about this earlier today. If our beliefs create our reality, and billions of people believe Jesus died and resurrected, then how can Seth say something else happened? Haven't those people created a reality where Jesus died and resurrected?
Hi leidl, Hi All,
Actually, I've thought about this Seth, Jesus thing, quite a bit over the years.
In "Seth Speaks" Chapter 22, Seth tells us about the life that he lived during the time of Jesus. Seth says that in that life he was a man named Millenius who lived in in Rome and made bells for donkeys. It has occurred to me that perhaps some of what Seth came to know about Jesus occurred during that life.
Then, in Chapter 20 of "The God of Jane", Seth talks about Christianity's early days and how there were many probable versions of Christianity that could have occurred. Then he says that each one of these probable versions did occur.
In that chapter, Rob asks Seth if this information on Christianity's early days came from Seth's life during the time of Jesus. Seth responds by saying that this information came from both that life and a lot of what he came to know after that life.
Using this line of reasoning, and based upon what Seth says about probable realities, I tend to believe that Seth's Jesus story is just one of many probable Jesus stories that could have and did occur. One of these other Jesus stories is the story one that billions of people today believe.
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18513#msg18513)
I have one final thought that I'd like to share about all of this. As I recall, (and right now I can't give you a session number for this, because I don't remember specifically where he said this; it might be in "Seth Speaks") Seth said something to the effect of the following.
His ideas are difficult to comprehend. However it is in the nature of trying to grasp these concepts that opens up our minds and this breaks them free of limiting beliefs. Furthermore, it is this opening up of our minds that allows us to finally comprehend what Seth is telling us.
LarryH, Deb, Sena, T. M., leidl, or anyone else here, does this comment that I just made, sound familiar or ring a bell with any of you?
jbseth, I do recall Seth saying several times that he had difficulty explaining his ideas to earth-bound human beings, but I can't recall the exact references. The Following Seth quote may be relevant:
"Your psychologies do not explain your own reality to you. They cannot contain your experience.
Your religions do not explain your greater reality, and your sciences leave you [just] as ignorant about the nature of the universe in which you dwell. These institutions and disciplines are composed of individuals, each restrained by limiting ideas about their own private reality; and so it is with private reality that we will begin and always return, period. These ideas in this book are meant to expand the private reality of each reader. They may appear esoteric or complicated, yet they are not beyond the reach of any person who is determined to understand the nature of the unknown elements of the self, and its greater world." (from "The "Unknown" Reality, Volume One (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts)
https://amzn.eu/4qOkYw9
Seth may have difficulty describing his concepts, but he did a much better job than any religion or psychology or any of the other sciences.
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18518#msg18518)
I was thinking about this earlier today. If our beliefs create our reality, and billions of people believe Jesus died and resurrected, then how can Seth say something else happened? Haven't those people created a reality where Jesus died and resurrected?
leidl, I see this somewhat differently. Seth says that in creating reality we can never infringe another person's free will. Billions of people may want to believe that Jesus the preacher was crucified, but they cannot override his free will. If Jesus did not want to suffer on the cross, no amount of beliefs of other people can make that happen. There is no historical evidence that Jesus the preacher was crucified. Jesus was a common name, and it is possible that a criminal named Jesus was crucified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18518#msg18518)
I was thinking about this earlier today. If our beliefs create our reality, and billions of people believe Jesus died and resurrected, then how can Seth say something else happened? Haven't those people created a reality where Jesus died and resurrected?
Good question, since there are unlimited realities. There are
more people who don't believe in the Jesus story (Islam, Atheism, Hinduism, etc.). Seth telling Jane that there are certain things that are facts, such a reincarnation, is interesting. A strong belief in something doesn't make it a fact, so maybe what Seth means by "facts" in this case are the root assumptions (session 286, TES7) "the basic premises upon which a given existence-system is formed" that pertain to THIS system. I'll read that entire session later today, it looks really good.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18519#msg18519)
So here, I'd say that in this example, belief does impact the outcome.
Seth does say that our belief in things can is does affect us significantly.
The placebo nocebo effects are proof enough for me that our beliefs can affect personal physical reality.
https://www.mdlinx.com/article/7-potent-powers-of-the-placebo-effect/2cO3HNrMslvxpW4qQ1hZpg
"The placebo effect is more than just wishful thinking. People taking a placebo can demonstrate measurable physiological changes akin to those taking effective medications. Investigators have observed improvements in blood pressure, heart rate, and blood test results in some research participants who responded to a placebo."
"the placebo response nearly equaled that of the medication effect—such that pharmaceutical companies are finding it harder and harder to prove that their pain medications work better than placebos."
I've also read that people taking placebos can suffer known side effects of the medication they
think they are taking.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18524#msg18524)
Billions of people may want to believe that Jesus the preacher was crucified, but they cannot override his free will. If Jesus did not want to suffer on the cross, no amount of beliefs of other people can make that happen. There is no historical evidence that Jesus the preacher was crucified. Jesus was a common name, and it is possible that a criminal named Jesus was crucified.
Wow, that was terrific! Just had to say that.
Seth also said that a delusional man who believed he was Jesus was the one who was crucified. Then again, the whole thing could be a complete fabrication on the part of a special interest group with ulterior motives. ;)
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18525#msg18525)
Seth also said that a delusional man who believed he was Jesus was the one who was crucified. Then again, the whole thing could be a complete fabrication on the part of a special interest group with ulterior motives.
I believe that it was just a story and nothing more. Christianity is certainly a powerful force in the world but for many, it means nothing at all. I find it curious that Seth spent so much time talking about Christianity when it's just one (albeit large) religion. It is the largest religion in the world but Islam is a relatively close second. I've always struggled with everything Seth says about Christianity. That could be because of my biases, I guess. Religion inherently divides the world and has been responsible for a lot of death and destruction over the years. People will readily commit the worst atrocities in the name of their god.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18526#msg18526)
I've always struggled with everything Seth says about Christianity. That could be because of my biases, I guess. Religion inherently divides the world and has been responsible for a lot of death and destruction over the years. People will readily commit the worst atrocities in the name of their god.
Actually, Seth's comments about religion are not inconsistent with your views. Consider what he said about religious fanatics in his Mass Events book or his comments about how religious teachings have been distorted over the centuries or how his version of the Christ story differs considerably from those teachings.
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18527#msg18527)
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18526#msg18526)
I've always struggled with everything Seth says about Christianity. That could be because of my biases, I guess. Religion inherently divides the world and has been responsible for a lot of death and destruction over the years. People will readily commit the worst atrocities in the name of their god.
Actually, Seth's comments about religion are not inconsistent with your views. Consider what he said about religious fanatics in his Mass Events book or his comments about how religious teachings have been distorted over the centuries or how his version of the Christ story differs considerably from those teachings.
I meant more that I don't believe any of it. I don't think that there was a Christ. I think it's a children's story told to scare kids into behaving and to teach morals. I wonder if there are any books that came out today that will be considered religion in 2000 years. If enough people believe fiction is fact, it becomes fact, for them at least. So when Seth talks about Christianity as if it is something other than a story, I just don't buy it.
Hi All,
I don't want to disrupt the flow of the conversation here, but I wanted to quickly share the following information in regards to a previous topic here.
In Chapter 10 of the book, "The Seth Material" Seth talked about the concept that we each create our individual glass (or Mark) from our very own perspective and space continuum. This same discussion and information can be found in Session 68 (see TES2, S68) which was written in July 6, 1964.
Yesterday I discovered that Seth also talks about this very same concept some years later during the ESP class session of June 23, 1970. If this information is a distortion, (and I'm not saying that it is or isn't) then it was a distortion that he continued to support some 6 years after he first talked about it in 1964.
In this ESP class, Art and Mary were sitting on a blue couch and Seth was talking about the people's perceptions. Here's what it says:
[...]
(Question from a class member: "Do we all create the same organization and see the same couch? "
(To Mary and Art): You each generally agree, I am sure, that you sit upon a couch. You do not perceive the same couch. You only perceive your own idea constructions. You cannot see those of another. Telepathically, you transpose your ideas in line with what you know of the other person's thinking. You agree that the couch is here. [...]
This discussion can be found in the ESP Class Session: Tuesday, June 23, 1970, which is located in the Appendix of "Seth Speaks".
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18513#msg18513)
I have one final thought that I'd like to share about all of this. As I recall, (and right now I can't give you a session number for this, because I don't remember specifically where he said this; it might be in "Seth Speaks") Seth said something to the effect of the following.
His ideas are difficult to comprehend. However it is in the nature of trying to grasp these concepts that opens up our minds and this breaks them free of limiting beliefs. Furthermore, it is this opening up of our minds that allows us to finally comprehend what Seth is telling us.
LarryH, Deb, Sena, T. M., leidl, or anyone else here, does this comment that I just made, sound familiar or ring a bell with any of you?
Hi All,
Again I don't want to disrupt the flow of the conversation here, but I wanted to quickly share the following. I think I've located what I was probably thinking about in my comments above and it turns out to be both different and similar to what I mentioned above. In UR2, S743, Seth is talking about his book, "The Unknown, Reality". I think that perhaps what Seth says here about this book and it's content may also apply to many of his other books as well.
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
-jbseth
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18528#msg18528)
I meant more that I don't believe any of it. I don't think that there was a Christ. I think it's a children's story told to scare kids into behaving and to teach morals. I wonder if there are any books that came out today that will be considered religion in 2000 years. If enough people believe fiction is fact, it becomes fact, for them at least. So when Seth talks about Christianity as if it is something other than a story, I just don't buy it.
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
Hey usmaak, I'm with you on this. There's a lot about Christianity that I just don't believe is true.
For me it wasn't so much that I didn't believe in the supernatural things that they said that Jesus did (heal the sick, cure the blind, heal the lame, etc.) because I've always felt that maybe many of those types of things might be possible. It was more of the ideas like, if you don't accept Jesus as your savior, then you'll burn in hell, kind of thing that really made me question a lot of it. This burning in hell for eternity idea, sure didn't seem to me to be very consistent with the idea that Jesus loves everyone. How could or why would a loving Jesus, send people to burn in hell for eternity just because they had some doubts about this story? No, this sounded a lot more like religious manipulation instead.
Then about 10 years ago, I discovered that there are and have been many biblical historical scholars (many of whom are university professors) and these people have been studying the Bible, not from a theological standpoint, but rather from a historical (what do we know actually occurred in history) standpoint. It turns out that when studied from this historical perspective, there are a huge number of inconsistencies in the Bible.
From the writing of these historical scholars, I've discovered that there are a whole lot of things that are written in the Bible that aren't and can't be true, just as a result of all of the inconsistencies within the Bible itself.
Some of the historical scholars, in studying all of this information believe that what probably happened was this. The original writers of the Bible used allegory and metaphors in their stories that they were writing. However, as time went on, the people lost track of this and came to believe that all of these stories were based upon real and actual events, instead.
From a historical standpoint, there is very little evidence that this specific Jesus ever actually existed. So little in fact, that it is possible that he actually never did exist.
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18529#msg18529)
I don't want to disrupt the flow of the conversation here, but I wanted to quickly share the following information in regards to a previous topic here.
I think I already thoroughly took care of that. ;D
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18531#msg18531)
Hey usmaak, I'm with you on this. There's a lot about Christianity that I just don't believe is true...
This is pretty much how I think about it. It's a story that became a fact in so many people's lives. And of course Christianity has an answer to any information that is counter to it - it is the devil swaying people so that they can burn.
It's entirely fear based manipulation.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18532#msg18532)
I think I already thoroughly took care of that.
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
That's fine if you have usmaak.
However, I thought that other members here, like Sena, Deb, leidl or LarryH might find this information interesting, and so that's why I addressed it to "All".
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18513#msg18513)
His ideas are difficult to comprehend. However it is in the nature of trying to grasp these concepts that opens up our minds and this breaks them free of limiting beliefs. Furthermore, it is this opening up of our minds that allows us to finally comprehend what Seth is telling us.
LarryH, Deb, Sena, T. M., leidl, or anyone else here, does this comment that I just made, sound familiar or ring a bell with any of you?
-jbseth
Hi All,
Hi Jbseth,
I think he said something to this effect in the NOPR, Chp 2-3, or 4
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18531#msg18531)
From a historical standpoint, there is very little evidence that this specific Jesus ever actually existed. So little in fact, that it is possible that he actually never did exist.
I totally agree. But there's a part of me that has always thought that there could have been a Jesus and his story was completely distorted (as Seth has indicated), for reasons of manipulation. I have no proof one way or the other, but I'd like to keep an open mind. Then there's the thought that every myth has a seed of truth to it. But honestly I have no investment in religion.
BTW, Mary turned up 300+ pages of unpublished materials. She had said to me a couple of times that she felt it could make a new book or two, and I'll do my best to get Laurel's permission to do so. Some of them deal with the "Christ" topic. Which I have to say has always bothered me, in that Seth allegedly referred to Jesus as "Christ." Which is incorrect. His name was Jesus, his title was the Christ ("the anointed one"). Was this an error on Seth's part? Or an editor of the Seth books? Or Jane's distortion of information because of her religious hangups? I'd think Jane would know know better too.
I wish Mary was around so I could ask her what her impressions were. I started an inventory the boxes of things I received from Rich and Mary today, and had some pleasant surprises. So there may be something pertaining to this that will be uncovered.
I just looked at the Stats for this forum and the #1 topic for Views and Replies is still "The return of the Christ personality." I find that VERY interesting, considering the Seth material is not about religion.
https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?action=stats
Hi T. M., Hi Deb, Hi All,
T.M., thanks for that information about this information possibly being in NOPR. I'll check that out. I think the information in UR2, is similar, but it's not quite exactly like what I seem to remember. What I seem to remember was just a quick blurp maybe 2 to 3 sentences were he said something like what I initially said. I'm not sure if Seth actually said some like this or maybe my recall isn't completely on target.
Deb, yeah for some time now, I've been wondering about this statement by Seth (that Jesus was called "Christ") and his other comments about Jesus where he seems to insist that Jesus lived a very specific life (was kidnapped, another died on the cross, he wasn't crucified).
In the God of Jane, Seth talks about the early days of Christianity. In this book he mentions that during the time of Jesus, there were many people who became followers of people who they came to believe was "the Messiah". Seth says that many of these people hoped that their messiah, was "The Messiah".
In historical scholarship, in the writings of Josephus, there does appear to be some truth to this statement. Josephus mentions several people, who appeared to gather a following whereby some of these followers appeared to come to a belief that their leader was the "Messiah"
The word Christ, is the Greek translation of the Jewish word, "Messiah" which meant, the "Anointed One" Thus, there may have actually been some people, who were known by the name "Christ" (the "Messiah").
After thinking about why Seth was so insistence in his various comments about Jesus, I've come to the conclusion that what Seth had to say about probable realities takes precedence over all of this.
I'm not sure why Seth was so insistent upon his very specific "Christ" story. Maybe the purpose of this was to have us try to figure out why he said some of these things. Maybe the answer to this, can only be found in what Seth has said about probable realities.
Thus, I honestly believe that there are probable realities where:
Jesus never existed.
Jesus existed and he lived the life that Seth described.
Jesus existed and he lived the various lives that historical scholars believe.
Jesus existed and he lived the life that many Christians believe.
I also understand that all of these probable realities actually exist.
Seth tells us that we can change our past. Along these lines, maybe the specific probable reality that we choose to "believe" took place in history, becomes the probable reality that actually occurred in our personal history.
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18529#msg18529)
(To Mary and Art): You each generally agree, I am sure, that you sit upon a couch. You do not perceive the same couch. You only perceive your own idea constructions. You cannot see those of another. Telepathically, you transpose your ideas in line with what you know of the other person's thinking. You agree that the couch is here. [...]
This discussion can be found in the ESP Class Session: Tuesday, June 23, 1970, which is located in the Appendix of "Seth Speaks".
jbseth, thanks for highlighting this. If each person perceives his or her own couch, that fits with the idea of an infinite number of couches and an infinite number of universes. If we look up at the sky, the stars I see are different to the stars you see.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18535#msg18535)
I just looked at the Stats for this forum and the #1 topic for Views and Replies is still "The return of the Christ personality." I find that VERY interesting, considering the Seth material is not religious in any way.
https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?action=stats
Deb, these stats presumably include non-members? The stats are not surprising because 68% of Americans believe Jesus is God or the son of God:
"The Harris Poll found 57 percent of U.S. adult say they believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, down from 60 percent in 2005, and 72 percent say they believe in miracles, down from 79 percent in 2005, while 68 percent say they believe in heaven, down from 75 percent. Sixty-eight percent say they believe Jesus is God or the son of God, down from 72 percent; and 65 percent say they believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, down from 70 percent..."
https://theharrispoll.com/the-harris-poll-makes-headlines-with-its-november-2013-survey-on-americas-belief-in-god-results-of-this-study-are-featured-in-united-press-international-u-s-news-world-report-and-more/
More about how quantum physics validates the Seth teachings:
Extract from the book, "Quantum physics, illusion or reality? By Alastair I. M. Rae":
"Let us look at a few more consequences of the many-
worlds assumptions. We might wonder how many universes there are.
As every quantum event has two or more possible outcomes and as
huge numbers of branching events are continually occurring, the
number must be quite immense. It has been estimated that there are
about 10 to the power 80 elementary particles in the observable part of any one
universe. If we assumed that each of these had been involved in a two-
way branching event each second in the 10 to the power 10 years since the 'big bang',
the number of universes created by the present time would be
something like 10 to the power 10 into the power 12,
an unimaginably huge number, and this is
certainly a lower estimate. Where are all these universes? The answer is
that they are all 'here' where 'our' universe is: by definition universes
on different branches are unable to interact with each other in any way
(unless they are able to merge in the very special circumstances
mentioned earlier) so there is no reason why they should not occupy the
same space."
"The possibility of the existence of other universes, some of which
differ only slightly from our own, can lead to enticing speculations.
Thus there would be many universes which contain a planet just like
our own earth, but in which a particular living species is absent,
because the quantum events that caused the mutation which led to the
development of the species in our universe (and many like it) did not
follow this path in these other universes. Presumably there are
universes in which life evolved on Earth, but humankind didn't, and
which are therefore pollution free and not threatened by ecological
disaster or nuclear extinction. If we consider that every choice between
possible outcomes is fundamentally a result of a quantum event, then
every such possibility must exist in its own universe. Every choice we
have made in our lives may be associated with a quantum event in our
brains and, if so, there would be universes with other versions of
ourselves acting out the consequence of all these alternative thoughts."
I recommend this book for those, like me, who have only High School physics.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18535#msg18535)
I just looked at the Stats for this forum and the #1 topic for Views and Replies is still "The return of the Christ personality." I find that VERY interesting, considering the Seth material is not religious in any way.
All of the "second coming" stuff in Seth is one of the things that I have a real problem with. It's Seth, so it's not religious, but so much of Christianity is based upon this concept and it just seems silly to me.
Whenever I get to this material in the books, I just skim past it. Perhaps that is the incorrect approach. Perhaps I should really read it this time through.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18540#msg18540)
All of the "second coming" stuff in Seth is one of the things that I have a real problem with. It's Seth, so it's not religious, but so much of Christianity is based upon this concept and it just seems silly to me.
usmaak, I reject what Seth says about the second coming of Christ, but it would be interesting if a very knowledgeable female teacher turns up. We have had too many male know-alls from the Buddha onwards.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18541#msg18541)
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18540#msg18540)
All of the "second coming" stuff in Seth is one of the things that I have a real problem with. It's Seth, so it's not religious, but so much of Christianity is based upon this concept and it just seems silly to me.
usmaak, I reject what Seth says about the second coming of Christ, but it would be interesting if a very knowledgeable female teacher turns up. We have had too many male know-alls from the Buddha onwards.
Most of them don't know as much as they think they do, either. ;D
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18535#msg18535)
I find that VERY interesting, considering the Seth material is not about religion.
Hi Deb, Hi All,
And yet, Seth does spend quite a bit of time talking about religion(s). He seems to have a lot to say about Christ, and Christianity. But he also talks about Buddha, and Buddhism, the Eastern philosophies, and he does at least briefly mention voodoo, Taoism, and witchdoctors for example. Not only this, but he also talks about the "Speakers" for example. He says things like there were less than 30 great Speakers. The Christ entity was one and Buddha was another. He also says that at another level, Emerson was a speaker.
One of the things that I've picked up on from Seth is that there seems to be an ongoing scenario that seems to play out in regards to religions. When a religion starts to die out, another religious hero is born and this new religious hero will start a new religion to take its place. Seth talks about this in detail in SS, Ch21, S585.
In a similar vain, in talking about the reincarnational "plays" that we all participate in, he also says the following (SS, Ch 4, S522) which I think is probably related to this.
There are those who appear within these plays fully aware. These personalities willingly take roles, knowing that they are roles, in order to lead the others toward the necessary realization and development. They lead the actors to see beyond the selves and settings they have created. These personalities from other levels of existence oversee the play, so to speak, and appear among the actors. Their purpose is to open up within the three-dimensional selves those psychological doorways that will release the three-dimensional self for further development in another system of reality.
Given this then, if what Seth says here is true, I do belief that eventually at some point, as the world's religions start to decline, at some point in the future, some new religious hero will be born and a new religion will ultimately be born out of this.
I'm just not necessarily convinced, given what Seth says about Free Will and Probable Realities, that this future religious hero scenario, will necessarily be, Seth's "Second Coming" scenario.
-jbseth
But why religion? Why is it needed? The way I see it, religion stands directly in the path of clear thinking because it's largely brainwashing. And the way I see it, religion is something that the world actually needs to overcome to obtain any sort of enlightenment at all.
I am not a religious scholar. I admit that I don't know a lot about other religions and my judgements are based on what I have seen and experienced during my life. So many Christians think that they are enlightened but rarely do any of them live according to their instruction manual. In many cases, they seem to live in opposition to it. And in a lot of cases, the real religion is money and religion is just a way to more money.
I feel like this world would be a much better place without it all.
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
I'm kind of curious about what you think here.
Who do you think creates religions and why are they created? Have you thought about this?
If you were to remove all religions, then what would you propose be put in place of them? What would that look like and how would it work?
-jbseth
Hi All,
If I recall correctly, from a scientific study they have discovered that the human brain is hard wired to worship. It's easy to Google. Lots of articles will come up on it.
I get why Seth covers religion. It's the basis of many people's beliefs. Personally I think there's a controlling elite that's aware of humans need to worship, and have co-opted religion to their own ends. That control structure will also make sure whatever the real Christ said or did never sees mainstream coverage.
There were 12 savior gods that preceded J.C. They all pretty much follow the same pattern.
The Jesus that's paraded around in the churches is all about mind control and cash flow.
The Jesus in the Bible is likely astro theology, and the science of light veiled in allegorical form.
Santos Binaccia, Mr Astrotheology covers quite a bit of it on his YouTube channel.
I did find what I think likely a much truer story of Jesus the Christ in a book called
The Secrets in the Bible by Tony Bushby. It can be found as a free pdf on the net.
I do find what Seth has to say about Jesus and religion interesting. I also think religion has morphed into other forms. For instance, the left /right political divide being seen in many countries today.
Just my thoughts. I don't expect anyone to agree or not necessarily ;D
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18546#msg18546)
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
I'm kind of curious about what you think here.
Who do you think creates religions and why are they created? Have you thought about this?
If you were to remove all religions, then what would you propose be put in place of them? What would that look like and how would it work?
-jbseth
I'm assuming that religions are built by people and not gods. So my answer would be that we create religions.
As to what might replace them. I don't know. Free thinking? The ability to believe something without some rigid and ridiculous structure that makes absolutely no sense? The ability to do something without worry about what some sky daddy might think? Not having some sky creeper watching what I do with my body parts and deciding whether I need to roast for all eternity because of my decisions?
This apparent sarcasm is not directed at you or your question. I do see the point of the question. If we remove the structure of religions from the world, what happens to its people? I'd imagine they find structure elsewhere and perhaps that looks a lot like... Religion.
This is a fantastic question that really made me think this through. I despise religion and maybe part of the reason for that is that I simply do not need it where I am in my life. Of course there are other reasons that I've outlined in some of my prior posts.
I've seen posts/stories/articles talking about how people are moving away from religion. Maybe humanity is starting to get past the point where it's needed? In the groups that I frequent in places like Facebook, there's a lot of disdain for religion, and jokes about it. But it's entirely possible that the groups I spend time in are big echo chambers.
My thought is, though, that many people studying Seth do not need religion and are perhaps are looking for something else. As Seth became popular, I wonder if Jane struggled with concern that perhaps it would be turned into a form of religion.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18548#msg18548)
I wonder if Jane struggled with concern that perhaps it would be turned into a form of religion.
Yes, she did. She was adamant that the Seth material not be turned into a religion.
Quote from: T.M. (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18547#msg18547)
The Jesus that's paraded around in the churches is all about mind control and cash flow.
T.M., yes cash collection is done openly, while mind control is a covert operation.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18548#msg18548)
This apparent sarcasm is not directed at you or your question. I do see the point of the question. If we remove the structure of religions from the world, what happens to its people? I'd imagine they find structure elsewhere and perhaps that looks a lot like... Religion.
This is a fantastic question that really made me think this through.
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
Thanks, for the compliment, I'll take my bows. :)
I've noticed that you didn't answer the second part of my question, regarding why we've created these religions.
Here's what I think. I think that we, people, have created all kinds of, what I'll call, "belief systems" in order provide us with the answers to some fundamental questions that we don't know the answers to.
Here I'm talking about such questions as:
1) Why am I here?
2) What happens to me when I die?
3) How do I think?
It seem to me that people have created many different kinds of "belief systems" in order to come up with potential answers to some of these questions. It also seems to me that we tend to label many of these "belief systems" with very different names, like religions, the New Age movement, Seth, Scientology, philosophies, psychology, and science, for example.
I think that all of these things (religions, Seth, philosophies, etc.) are just various types of human created "belief systems".
Furthermore, I think that if you were to remove all of the "religions", in the world, then I suspect that you'd end up with all the other belief systems that you didn't remove. And what does that look like? All of the other remaining belief systems.
I think that what Seth was trying to tell us in SS, regarding the changing religions and religious hero's over time was this. Until we finally reach a point of spiritual evolution where we figure out the answers to these fundamental questions, as people continue to change over time, we'll just continue to periodically replace our old and fading "belief systems" with a new one that comes along in the future. Like it or not, I suspect that some of these new ones will give birth to what we would call a new religion.
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18553#msg18553)
I've noticed that you didn't answer the second part of my question, regarding why we've created these religions.
I think that they were created to provide structure or a framework of beliefs. And to ease people's fear of things that go bump in the night. Over time we've learned that there are legitimate reasons for those types of things but in the past, perhaps there were fewer good answers and more fear whenever something out of the ordinary happened.
Of course religion often introduces new things that go bump in the night and they can be even more frightening.
And people seem to have an innate need to understand the world and how it works. Religion provides frameworks to explain everything. It makes fearful people feel secure. It answers questions for which there appear to be no answers. And it is a way to control the masses. Set up a religion with a strict and exacting punishment system, cover as many loopholes as you can, convince people to follow it and in no time at all, you have a large group of people willing to do whatever their told because they fear the punishment. You get warriors to fight your battles while you sit back and rake in the profits.
Perhaps this seems simplistic but I think that religion is simple. It's a way for fearful individuals to control some aspect of their lives and it's a way for people in power to control those individuals.
There is a story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?" "He picked up a piece of Truth," said the devil. "That is a very bad business for you, then," said his friend. "Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to let him organize it."
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18548#msg18548)
If we remove the structure of religions from the world, what happens to its people? I'd imagine they find structure elsewhere and perhaps that looks a lot like... Religion
Yes, that's exactly what happened to many scientists. They have replaced the religions of their ancestors with a new faith--scientific materialism.
"Materialism is a conviction based not upon evidence or logic but upon what Carl Sagan (speaking of another kind of faith) called a "deep-seated need to believe." Considered purely as a rational philosophy, it has little to recommend it; but as an emotional sedative, what Czeslaw Milosz liked to call the opiate of unbelief, it offers a refuge from so many elaborate perplexities, so many arduous spiritual exertions, so many trying intellectual and moral problems, so many exhausting expressions of hope or fear, charity or remorse. In this sense, it should be classified as one of those religions of consolation whose purpose is not to engage the mind or will with the mysteries of being but merely to provide a palliative for existential grievances and private disappointments. Popular atheism is not a philosophy but a therapy."
This quote is from David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss.
Personally I think we're missing something important, though, if we dismiss all religious and non-religious faith as tools of control or the desire for certainty. Many humans experience a transcendent reality at least a couple of times in their lives. In my own case, years after the faith of my childhood had disintegrated, my dad was diagnosed with cancer. He went through treatment, and we thought all was good. Then a couple of years later the cancer came back. I was living thousands of miles from my parents when I got the phone call. I don't even remember what we said anymore, but I do remember what happened after I hung up the phone. I walked out of the house into the back garden, and felt love pouring off the laurels and plum tree. The grass, my row of scraggly raspberries, the overgrown quince...they were all luminous with love.
Although religions have a tendency to become separated from the kernels of experience they are built on, I do think there is something grand afoot in the universe, and religions have attempted to make sense of it. That most of us have had bad experiences with religion may not tell us anything about the value of religion itself. It may just be evidence that it is time for a new perspective to arise.
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18557#msg18557)
I walked out of the house into the back garden, and felt love pouring off the laurels and plum tree. The grass, my row of scraggly raspberries, the overgrown quince...they were all luminous with love.
leidl, thanks for sharing with us your experience of All That Is. The big mistake that Christianity and Islam have made is teaching that All That Is is a person. The elephant god Ganesh in Hinduism is nearer to the truth.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18558#msg18558)
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18557#msg18557)
I walked out of the house into the back garden, and felt love pouring off the laurels and plum tree. The grass, my row of scraggly raspberries, the overgrown quince...they were all luminous with love.
leidl, thanks for sharing with us your experience of All That Is. The big mistake that Christianity and Islam have made is teaching that All That Is is a person. The elephant god Ganesh in Hinduism is nearer to the truth.
An angry, vengeful person. Well, from the point of Christianity. I know nothing about Islam.
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18557#msg18557)
He went through treatment, and we thought all was good. Then a couple of years later the cancer came back. I was living thousands of miles from my parents when I got the phone call. I don't even remember what we said anymore, but I do remember what happened after I hung up the phone. I walked out of the house into the back garden, and felt love pouring off the laurels and plum tree. The grass, my row of scraggly raspberries, the overgrown quince...they were all luminous with love.
Hi leidl,
That's absolutely beautiful, thanks for sharing that. :)
-jbseth
Hi All,
Hey, just sharing some thoughts.
One of the things that I've learned here over of the years is this, a person can be fooled two ways. A person can be fooled: 1) by believing that something is true, when it isn't and 2) by believing that something isn't true, when it is.
People who are gullible may end up having some experience with this first scenario, while people who are closed-minded may end up having some experience with the second. People, who are closed-minded, can also close themselves off to any additional information that could shed some light upon the thing that they believed wasn't true.
There is a middle ground scenario that some people try to take in all of this and these people who take this middle ground strive to be neither gullible nor closed minded. It's been my experience here that there are several of the members here in this forum who seem to strive for this middle ground scenario.
So, what does this middle ground scenario look like? When Seth says something like we each create our own space continuum, or when leidl says something like, "I walked out of the house into the back garden, and felt love pouring off the laurels and plum tree.", people who take this middle ground scenario will take a look at these ideas and experiences and say to themselves, hey, that's really interesting. I don't know what to think of that, but I'm certainly open to the possibility that these things could be true.
The thing here is this, a person that takes this middle-ground approach isn't necessarily closed-minded, just because they don't automatically accept some ideas. Nor are they necessarily gullible just because they don't automatically reject some ideas. The people who don't take this middle-ground approach, however, don't always recognize this.
I do strive to take this middle-ground approach to many of the ideas that get expressed here, but I'm not always sure that I'm completely successful at it.
-jbseth
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18557#msg18557)
Yes, that's exactly what happened to many scientists. They have replaced the religions of their ancestors with a new faith--scientific materialism.
"Materialism is a conviction based not upon evidence or logic but upon what Carl Sagan (speaking of another kind of faith) called a "deep-seated need to believe." Considered purely as a rational philosophy, it has little to recommend it; but as an emotional sedative, what Czeslaw Milosz liked to call the opiate of unbelief, it offers a refuge from so many elaborate perplexities, so many arduous spiritual exertions, so many trying intellectual and moral problems, so many exhausting expressions of hope or fear, charity or remorse. In this sense, it should be classified as one of those religions of consolation whose purpose is not to engage the mind or will with the mysteries of being but merely to provide a palliative for existential grievances and private disappointments. Popular atheism is not a philosophy but a therapy.
"This quote is from David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss.
Personally I think we're missing something important, though, if we dismiss all religious and non-religious faith as tools of control or the desire for certainty. Many humans experience a transcendent reality at least a couple of times in their lives. In my own case, years after the faith of my childhood had disintegrated, my dad was diagnosed with cancer. He went through treatment, and we thought all was good. Then a couple of years later the cancer came back. I was living thousands of miles from my parents when I got the phone call. I don't even remember what we said anymore, but I do remember what happened after I hung up the phone. I walked out of the house into the back garden, and felt love pouring off the laurels and plum tree. The grass, my row of scraggly raspberries, the overgrown quince...they were all luminous with love.
Although religions have a tendency to become separated from the kernels of experience they are built on, I do think there is something grand afoot in the universe, and religions have attempted to make sense of it. That most of us have had bad experiences with religion may not tell us anything about the value of religion itself. It may just be evidence that it is time for a new perspective to arise.
Hi leidl, Hi All,
leidl, I really like what you wrote here. The entire thing.
-jbseth
Hey jbseth and all,
jbseth, thank you for being open to hearing about my experience. It never even occurred to me that my story might be implausible to people here, despite the fact that nothing like that has ever happened to me before or since. I just accepted it at face value at the time, and I don't even remember puzzling over what its implications were. But upon reflection, the startling thing is not that something like that happened; it is that it things like that don't happen more.
"The emotion of love brings you closest to an understanding of the nature of All That Is."
—NotP Chapter 5: Session 774, May 3, 1976
If the nature of All That Is is best described as love, then the nature of the natural world, as part of All That Is, is also love. Our nature is love. Love is pouring off reality all the time. I don't claim that anything special was being directed at me at all. Perhaps my brain was shocked into stillness, and I caught a glimpse of the reality we're all surrounded by every moment. People who have NDE's often experience an all-encompassing love, maybe because their brain is still, also.
People have been getting glimpses like this for millennia, and it is probably part of why religions say God is omniscient, omnipresent, and loving. I'm an atheist about the Old Testament God, who is vengeful, and agnostic about the New Testament God, who...confuses me. But I'm cool with All That Is. I'd like to feel the reality of it more, and expect it is quite possible.
In case it isn't obvious, I try to be a middle-grounder, too. I'm open to both science and religion. Except in their dogmatic forms. :)
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18565#msg18565)
It never even occurred to me that my story might be implausible to people here, despite the fact that nothing like that has ever happened to me before or since. I just accepted it at face value at the time, and I don't even remember puzzling over what its implications were. But upon reflection, the startling thing is not that something like that happened; it is that it things like that don't happen more.
leidl, I find your story very believable. It may be significant that your experience occurred in the context of you learning of your father's illness and impending death.
"Life implies death, and death implies life — that is, in the terms of your world. In those terms life is a spoken element, while death is the unspoken but still-present element "beneath," upon which life rides. Both are equally present." (from "The Nature of the Psyche: Its Human Expression (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts, Chapter 7, Session 779)
https://amzn.eu/ilInj7b
QuoteI don't even remember what we said anymore, but I do remember what happened after I hung up the phone. I walked out of the house into the back garden, and felt love pouring off the laurels and plum tree. The grass, my row of scraggly raspberries, the overgrown quince...they were all luminous with love.
The other significant thing in your marvellous description is that All That Is manifested in Nature (trees and grass). This brings to mind the philosophy of Spinoza:
https://www.discovery.org/a/baruch-spinoza-was-no-science-hero/
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18563#msg18563)
There is a middle ground scenario that some people try to take in all of this and these people who take this middle ground strive to be neither gullible nor closed minded. It's been my experience here that there are several of the members here in this forum who seem to strive for this middle ground scenario.
This is a great message for me and it is something that I keep forgetting. I always err on the side of what you see is what you get when I am not thinking about it. Sometimes in the process of living, I forget to at least be open to the possibilities.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18567#msg18567)
This is a great message for me and it is something that I keep forgetting. I always err on the side of what you see is what you get when I am not thinking about it. Sometimes in the process of living, I forget to at least be open to the possibilities.
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
Boy, I can says the same thing for myself. This is a great message for me as well.
This is also something that I occasionally forget as well. Sometimes I err on the side of what you see is what you get when I get all caught up and I'm involved in the process of living. Sometime I forget to be open to the possibilities.
-jbseth
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18565#msg18565)
jbseth, thank you for being open to hearing about my experience. It never even occurred to me that my story might be implausible to people here, despite the fact that nothing like that has ever happened to me before or since. I just accepted it at face value at the time, and I don't even remember puzzling over what its implications were. But upon reflection, the startling thing is not that something like that happened; it is that it things like that don't happen more. "The emotion of love brings you closest to an understanding of the nature of All That Is."
—NotP Chapter 5: Session 774, May 3, 1976
If the nature of All That Is is best described as love, then the nature of the natural world, as part of All That Is, is also love. Our nature is love. Love is pouring off reality all the time. I don't claim that anything special was being directed at me at all. Perhaps my brain was shocked into stillness, and I caught a glimpse of the reality we're all surrounded by every moment. People who have NDE's often experience an all-encompassing love, maybe because their brain is still, also.
People have been getting glimpses like this for millennia, and it is probably part of why religions say God is omniscient, omnipresent, and loving. I'm an atheist about the Old Testament God, who is vengeful, and agnostic about the New Testament God, who...confuses me. But I'm cool with All That Is. I'd like to feel the reality of it more, and expect it is quite possible.
In case it isn't obvious, I try to be a middle-grounder, too. I'm open to both science and religion. Except in their dogmatic forms.
Hi leidl, Hi All,
Thank YOU for reminding me of something very important. Not only did people probably create religions because they were trying to answer questions like, why am I here and what happens to me when I die, but they also probably were looking for answers to questions in regards to the transcendent events that they experienced as well. Most Excellent.
Your comments reminded me of the fact that when I'm not all caught up in life itself, I try to play this middle ground, with things that I hear about, and see, and do. Over the years, I've discovered for myself that the more that I remain open to other things that people talk about, the more of them seem to occur in my life. This has reminded me that when I don't remain open, that mental door that keeps them coming through to me, seems to close somewhat on them. I just took your comments and the earlier discussion we had on Seth and his statement about how we each create our individual space continuum, and decided to share with myself and others here in the forum about this reminder about striving to stay in this middle-ground position.
To be clear here, I didn't think that your story was implausible. As I've just said, the more I remain open to these kinds of things, the more I seem to both hear of them and experience them in my life. My mother had a NDE, when I was very little. When I got older, she would sometimes talk to me about it. She told me that wherever she was in this experience, she said that she felt completely and totally surrounded by this incredible love. She didn't want to leave it, she said that it was wonderful. While I haven't had a transcendent experience like yours, I can definitely believe that it may have been something like my Mom's.
I'm with you, I'm a complete atheist to the God of many religions. Not only that but I'm also completely repulsed by some of the practices that have been done in the name of many religions. Not only things like telling people that they'll burn in hell for eternity if they don't believe in their specific religion and its dogma, but also other things like the inquisition, the witchcraft burnings, the killing of the Cathars, the wars during the middle ages between the Catholics and Protestants, This doesn't exclusive belong to the Christians however, there are also other examples such as in the practices of the Aztec's, who it was said, would purposely war on their neighboring Native American tribesmen just so that they could capture slaves alive. These slaves were then used as sacrifices to the Aztec Sun God, by having their hearts cut out of them.
Given the fact that people seem to have had transcendent types of experiences throughout eternity, I do believe that there is something else that's going on here, besides the things that religion tell us and their various practices and dogmas. I personally, really like Seth's, "All That Is" concept. I think it seems to provide much better answers to many of the things that religions try to answer, including things like peoples transcendent experiences.
-jbseth
Wow, I have to say I love the way this topic has headed. Beautiful.
Quote from: Deb (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18570#msg18570)
Wow, I have to say I love the way this topic has headed. Beautiful.
I lost touch my last Seth friend a couple of years ago in one of those "not everyone is meant to be in your life forever" types of events. It's nice to find a group of people that like to talk about this stuff. I'm learning a lot. :)
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18566#msg18566)
"Life implies death, and death implies life — that is, in the terms of your world. In those terms life is a spoken element, while death is the unspoken but still-present element "beneath," upon which life rides. Both are equally present." (from "The Nature of the Psyche: Its Human Expression (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts, Chapter 7, Session 779)
This quote is curiously comforting, Sena, thank you. To think of life and death as both equally present, rather life being now and death being what happens when life ends, makes death less remote and scary. Death is a process we are deeply immersed in, right in this moment. Something like 300 million cells die in us each minute. I've read we lose our entire body weight in dead cells in a year. Sort of a slow motion death and birth going on all the time. We don't even have to leave linear time to feel the reality of life and death existing simultaneously!
Spinoza was one of my first loves in philosophy. He talked about God constantly in his writing, yet was reviled for being an atheist. My relations with my family: same. :-) Well...they love me, but revile what they perceive as my atheism.
It's all about how we define God. What I love about Seth's All-That-Is approach is that it is self-defining, and all inclusive. Reading my earlier post, I see that I mentioned I'd like to feel the reality of All-That-Is more. That was a nonsensical statement. All-That-Is, by definition, includes me, yet I am speaking of it as if it is out there! As long as I believe it is out there, I will create that experience. ATI will feel remote to me.
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18569#msg18569)
My mother had a NDE, when I was very little. When I got older, she would sometimes talk to me about it. She told me that wherever she was in this experience, she said that she felt completely and totally surrounded by this incredible love. She didn't want to leave it, she said that it was wonderful.
Thank you for sharing this, jbseth, I can't imagine what it would feel like to grow up with a story like this in the family. So many people who experience NDE's say something similar to what your mother did, about not wanting to leave the feeling of love. They too seem to believe that this source of love is something outside them, something they can be separated from. Has anyone has ever read of an NDE experience where someone realizes they are not separate from this love, and are happy to go back to their bodies with a new realization of their oneness with ATI and its shared nature of love? If so I hope you will post.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18570#msg18570)
It's nice to find a group of people that like to talk about this stuff. I'm learning a lot.
Me too. I've noticed I learn more when I participate in a thread than when I just read. Trying to articulate my point of view can help me see it with new eyes, help me see my own contradictions. And if I don't catch them...some one else will, for sure.
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18573#msg18573)
Spinoza was one of my first loves in philosophy. He talked about God constantly in his writing, yet was reviled for being an atheist. My relations with my family: same. :-) Well...they love me, but revile what they perceive as my atheism.
It's all about how we define God. What I love about Seth's All-That-Is approach is that it is self-defining, and all inclusive. Reading my earlier post, I see that I mentioned I'd like to feel the reality of All-That-Is more. That was a nonsensical statement. All-That-Is, by definition, includes me, yet I am speaking of it as if it is out there! As long as I believe it is out there, I will create that experience. ATI will feel remote to me.
leidl, it is sad that your family regard you as an atheist when you are clearly not. An atheist is someone like the silly Richard Dawkins.
Your experience of nature was what is called a mystical experience. The following is an extract from the Peter Skafish thesis on Jane Roberts:
"Since neither religion nor science could provide adequate means for illumining her
ecstasies and their consequences, she could only conceptualize them by wresting away from
religion and its injunction to passivity its affirmation of experiences of the soul, burglaring
from science both the intellect and the chronic discomfort with the purportedly true that it
induces in its practitioners, and concatenating them together into a unique method for
answering the questions before her. "
In a way, I was just as bad," she says, as all those who
had written her to confess that they had hidden their psychic, visionary, and mystical
experiences from spouses and family out of shame and fear, for "I questioned myself and
my experience" instead of forgetting the old, mechanical physics science ascribes to the real,
and accepting the data contradicting it that had come to her apart from her five senses."
https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Skafish_berkeley_0028E_11602.pdf
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18573#msg18573)
Reading my earlier post, I see that I mentioned I'd like to feel the reality of All-That-Is more. That was a nonsensical statement. All-That-Is, by definition, includes me, yet I am speaking of it as if it is out there! As long as I believe it is out there, I will create that experience. ATI will feel remote to me.
I think when we want to feel a greater connection to All-That-Is, we are really talking about an expansion of our definitions of ourselves. This idea of expansion is to somehow experientially include the reality beyond our personhood as our greater identity. I have had the experience of becoming "massive" during meditations, and I believe Jane has described that same phenomenon. That seems like a symbolic way of experiencing that expansiveness. I had a mystical experience after walking out of a theatre where I had watched
Picnic at Hanging Rock, an Australian movie. Most people would consider it "dark". Early in the movie, a young woman with a beatific look says something to the effect, "Everything happens at exactly the right time and at exactly the right place." She later goes into a cave, never to be seen again. It seemed that she had an expansive awareness of the "rightness" of the world and an acceptance of things that would horrify most others. I walked out of the theatre on the Balboa peninsula, and watched the seagulls flying overhead, the breeze, and the ocean waves, and I felt an unusually expansive intimate connection to that interplay of nature with itself, with me. I felt a sense of identity with those elements of nature, as if looking into a mirror.
Quote from: leidl (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18573#msg18573)
Thank you for sharing this, jbseth, I can't imagine what it would feel like to grow up with a story like this in the family. So many people who experience NDE's say something similar to what your mother did, about not wanting to leave the feeling of love. They too seem to believe that this source of love is something outside them, something they can be separated from. Has anyone has ever read of an NDE experience where someone realizes they are not separate from this love, and are happy to go back to their bodies with a new realization of their oneness with ATI and its shared nature of love? If so I hope you will post.
Hi leidl, Hi All,
Hi, leidl, I can't say that I've come across a NDE story quite like that. However, I have come across several NDE stories where people have come back with what they felt was a mission. In many cases, this mission was to share their stories and to make people aware of their personal NDE experiences.
One of the most incredible NDE stories that I'm aware of is the NDE story of Anita Moorjani, which is written about in her book, "Dying to be Me". I would definitely say that Anita is one of those people who feels that she has a mission to tell her story, and I for one, I'm glad that she did and does. Her story is amazing.
An idea has been running around in my mind lately about the "transcendent" experiences that people sometimes have. This idea is this, maybe people have to be at a certain level or stage of consciousness in order to experience them. That is, they have to be at some level "other than" our normal everyday level of consciousness in order to experience them. For example, what I'm trying to say here is this. When we're at a theatre and watching a movie, we aren't at our normal level of consciousness. Instead, we're so fully engrossed in the movie, that we momentarily forget about who we are. Likewise, something similar happens to us when we go to sleep and dream, or when we meditate, or when we daydream. I suspect that in some cases, these other than normal levels of consciousness may be very subtle. In fact, they may be so subtle that we may not even recognize them.
I think that this idea has probably come to me from something that Jane has written about in her book, Psychic Politics". In this book, in Chapter 24, titled "Stages of Consciousness", Jane has some interesting things to say about this topic. I'm going to both quote and paraphrase some of what she says here just to make it easier.
She starts out by talking about a transcendent experience that she recently had. I think that this transcendent experience was really pertinent to this topic and very beautiful and so I'm going to quote some of it in the spoiler below. In regards to this transcendent experience, Jane says the following.
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
After having this transcendent experience, she tells us that the next day, she sat down at her desk and some additional material came to her. She says that this additional material was related to her experience of the day before. Then she proceeds to write about the "Stages of Consciousness". Under this section she writes about four stages of consciousness, Stage One to Stage Four. From what she writes here it's pretty apparent that our normal stage of consciousness would be Stage Zero, though she doesn't write about this stage.
In talking about these stages of consciousness, she mentions how in our society once you begin to glimpse these wider abilities, people are afraid that the self you know would be swept away or annihilated by them. Instead the "old self" assimilates this new information and becomes the "new self". She says that sometimes the self becomes frightened because of its own beliefs and so it sets up barriers to psychic growth that are in direct proportion to this sensed psychic expansion. She says that the state of consciousness that we consider to be normal is only a threshold to natural progressions. She says that to one extent or another each person tries to outgrow that normal state of consciousness and in doing so, her stages of consciousness, one through four become apparent.
Stage one is the stage where unofficial information begins to be perceived. Such as in automatic writing and in Ouija board usage. Following this, each stage gets progressively deeper.
Following her discussion of these four stages, she begins to talk about the codicils and where they fit in. She says that they aren't visible at our normal stage of consciousness and in fact at this level, they seem to contradict much of the known facts. She also says that the codicils made perfect sense to her when she was in the same stage of consciousness in which she received them. She says that at that level of consciousness they are accepted as fact to those (Seth, Sumari, Seven and Helper) who operate at that level habitually. Jane tells us that Seth Two seems to operate at an even a more distant level.
These comments that were made by Jane, in this chapter of her book, "Psychic Politics" make me wonder if perhaps the transcendent experiences that people have, may likewise operate in a similar fashion. That is, like the codicils, we have to be at a certain stage of consciousness before we can experience them. Furthermore, perhaps it isn't possible to experience these transcendent experiences at our normal level of consciousness.
This might explain why it is possible for some people to experience that incredible feeling of love, like that experienced by leidl, my mother and Jane. Perhaps people need to be at a certain stage of consciousness, in order to experience that feeling of love.
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18576#msg18576)
These comments that were made by Jane, in this chapter of her book, "Psychic Politics" make me wonder if perhaps the transcendent experiences that people have, may likewise operate in a similar fashion. That is, like the codicils, we have to be at a certain stage of consciousness before we can experience them. Furthermore, perhaps it isn't possible to experience these transcendent experiences at our normal level of consciousness.
jbseth, thanks for drawing our attention to Jane Robert's book "Psychic Politics". This was published in 1976, two years after NOPR. Another quote from the book (Chapter 7):
"The present model for physical life precludes any
easy mixing of the living and the dead, any casual encounters
between those in flesh and out of it as a common occurrence.
This was not always the case, for at one time the dead and
living mixed far more openly. Man's consciousness chose to
focus upon ever-increasing specifics in terms of time, how
ever, and gradually closed out the reference points in which
such encounters could occur.
In the previous wider reference there was enough
leeway for corporal and noncorporal experiences to intersect
in space under certain conditions. The closer time reference
chosen closed this gap, requiring on the part of the dead a
specific focus they could not easily achieve in order to make
their presence felt.
The path of the living and dead become divergent.
Earlier, however, the dead continued to instruct—parents
returning to their children, and dead travelers returning to
their tribes, telling of their journeys. In this way, for mil
lennia, knowledge was passed on through the centuries. Man's
consciousness was more flexible and accommodating, yet
while it operated in that manner, the possibilities for more
specific experience and more precise focus remained latent.
Man gradually altered the focus of his consciousness, per
ceiving as real only those phenomena that fell within a
particular range, bringing into actuality levels of physical
experience to which he had been blind earlier, and gradually
becoming opaque to other stimuli which he had once per
ceived clearly.
Encounters with the dead then became blurred,
occurring in dream states; which always represent other areas
of consciousness dimly perceived but not accepted as official
reality."
Hi Sena, Hi All,
Sena, thanks for sharing that information from Chapter 7 of "Psychic Politics" with us. I like what it says. :)
I see from Chapter 7 of this book, that this information came directly to Jane, from the book, "Psychic Politics" that Jane psychically picked up, from her "psychic" library. How awesome is that. :)
As I was reading this information, I noticed that it sounds quite a bit like some of what Seth talked about in Chapter 5 of his book DEAVF1. This is the chapter that's titled, "The "Garden of Eden." "Man "Loses" His Dream Body and Gains a "Soul". Check it out.
DEAVF1, Ch 5, S899:
(Long pause in a steady, rather fast delivery.) Man's dream body is still with him, of course, but the physical body now obscures it. The dream body cannot be harmed while the physical one can—as man quickly found out as he transformed his experience largely from one to the other. In the dream body man feared nothing. The dream body does not die. It exists before and after physical death. In their dream bodies men had watched the spectacle of animals "killing" other animals, and they saw the animals' dream bodies emerge unscathed.
They saw that the earth was simply changing its forms, but that the identity of each unit of consciousness survived—and so, although they saw the picture of death, they did not recognize it as the death that to many people now seems an inevitable end.
[Men] saw that there must be an exchange of physical energy for the world to continue. They watched the drama of the "hunter" and the "prey," seeing that each animal contributed so that the physical form of the earth could continue—but the rabbit eaten by the wolf survived in a dream body that men knew was its true form. When man "awakened" in his physical body, however, and specialized in the use of its senses, he no longer perceived the released dream body of the slain animal running away, still cavorting on the hillside. He retained memory of his earlier knowledge, and for a considerable period he could now and then recapture that knowledge. He became more and more aware of his physical senses, however: Some things were definitely pleasant and some were not. Some stimuli were to be sought out, and others avoided, and so over a period of time he translated the pleasant and the unpleasant into rough versions of good and evil.
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18579#msg18579)
The dream body does not die. It exists before and after physical death.
jbseth, thanks for that very useful reference. It seems to me that the "dream body" is what is referred to by some writers as the "astral body":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_body
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318464
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18580#msg18580)
jbseth, thanks for that very useful reference. It seems to me that the "dream body" is what is referred to by some writers as the "astral body":
Hi Sena, Hi All,
Yes, that does appear to be true. However in TES6, Seth has quite a bit more to say about this topic and it appears that there is much more to this according to Seth.
First off, in TES6, Session 258 Seth tells us that what we call dimensions, "represent states in which reality is perceived". He also says that, "You perceive reality in three dimensions, and that we have a glimpse of reality in a fourth dimension". Along with this he says, "There are many dimensions however in all directions."
Furthermore, in this same session he tells us that, "these dimensions merely represent various capacities of consciousness. All these dimensions exist at once, and even within your system, but your consciousness cannot perceive them."
Then a little further down he says, "Nothing but the various stages of consciousness separates the dimensions, you see, but the separation is quite effective nonetheless."
Then again, a little further down in this same session he says, "Other systems exist with the same space occupied in your own, but you cannot perceive them."
Now, while all of this discussion by Seth seems to support the point that I was trying to make in my posting of reply #78 above, Seth then takes this discussion and turns it toward a discussion about dreams, the dream self and the various other what he calls "personality structures" that also exist.
In TES6, Session 259, Seth says, "There is no need to get too complicated, so we shall deal only with fourth and fifth-dimensional personaility structures for now."
"You do exist therefore in both of these dimensions. The ego cannot participate directly in such an experience. There is a compliance on the part of the ego, however, that allows it to step aside so that it does not block inner awarenessof the other –dimensional existence."
Then, a little further down Seth says:
"Now I do not like the term astral bodies, simply because of the sometimes weird connotations connected with the phrase. There is a kind of idea, or mental body, a counterpart in many ways, but not always, to the physical body, which is the structure the self takes in what you may call for now fourth dimension.
Certain dream experiences are valid out-of-the-body experiences, in that you do indeed travel in this mental vehicle. It does have a form, somewhere between matter and nonmatter."
"In physical existence usually you simply do not perceive it. There is a psychic structure also that has a form. This is the self as it appears within what you may call for now fifth-dimensional reality, but it does not exist at all in terms of matter. On occasion you travel in this form."
Here, Seth seems to be talking about 2 different types of bodies or forms. One a "mental" body or form is the structure the self takes in the fourth dimension and then there's another one, a "psychic" structure or form that the self takes in fifth dimensional reality.
In TES6, S260, he talks about this a little more when he says, "The mental body, sometimes called the astral body, it the next one that you will inhabit. You inhabit it now, of course."
Then, in TES6, Session 261, Seth talks about three forms. Here's what he says:
Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18581#msg18581)
When you enter a different dimension the abilities of the body form change, and for all intents and purposes it is a different body form, which we will call a mind form. It still seems physical in shape, but you can walk through physical matter with it, and you can truly levitate with it within your solar system, but you cannot go beyond in this mind form.
You can travel anywhere within your solar system however with it. In the first form it is possible to perceive the past, present and future on a limited basis. In the second form this perception is on a larger scale, the scope of consciousness being further opened. Now this is the form that you will use if you meet appointments with others within the dream state.
Solar system? That seems like a kind of weird thing. Why not beyond the solar system? There is matter well beyond it. It's just a strange rule to have in place. An arbitrary boundary set in physical matter.
Hey all,
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18575#msg18575)
I think when we want to feel a greater connection to All-That-Is, we are really talking about an expansion of our definitions of ourselves.
Larry, this sounds like truth, and I appreciate your articulating it.
Quote from: LarryH (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18575#msg18575)
I walked out of the theatre on the Balboa peninsula, and watched the seagulls flying overhead, the breeze, and the ocean waves, and I felt an unusually expansive intimate connection to that interplay of nature with itself, with me. I felt a sense of identity with those elements of nature, as if looking into a mirror.
That's beautiful. :-) I've been curious about that film since it was on the art house circuit in the late seventies, but haven't worked up the courage to watch it. I wonder if Peter Weir intended the girl's words to be the spiritual truth you took from them, or if he was implying something more like fatalism. If it was the latter, nice job creating a vision of reality bigger than the director's!
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18576#msg18576)
An idea has been running around in my mind lately about the "transcendent" experiences that people sometimes have. This idea is this, maybe people have to be at a certain level or stage of consciousness in order to experience them.
Yes, this makes sense, as long as we acknowledge that transcendent experience doesn't necessarily indicate one is operating at some kind of a higher level. As mentioned previously, I think it likely that after hearing the news about my father's cancer returning, my brain was literally shocked into stillness. From what I've read about using psychedelic drugs, which I've gotten mostly from Michael Pollan's book How To Change Your Mind, psychedelics make the mind less active rather than more, and the less active it gets, the more profound the experiences of the user can be. (Sometimes that means profoundly terrifying.)
The goal, of course, is to achieve these states naturally, through progressively deeper realizations of the nature of the self. Seth makes it pretty clear that using drugs for this purpose can have lasting negative effects.
My point is just that I think under certain circumstances, probably including profound despair as in the case of Eckhart Tolle, a spiritually undeveloped person can find themselves in a transcendent place. I agree, jbseth, that film has the ability to do this as well. The film Paterson altered my state of consciousness temporarily. (If you're into quiet, offbeat films about bus-driving poets, this might be one to watch. I loved it, and it has Sethian undertones.)
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18576#msg18576)
In talking about these stages of consciousness, she mentions how in our society once you begin to glimpse these wider abilities, people are afraid that the self you know would be swept away or annihilated by them. Instead the "old self" assimilates this new information and becomes the "new self".
Very helpful. Thank you, jbseth. I will take this with me.
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18578#msg18578)
...at one time the dead and
living mixed far more openly....The closer time reference
chosen closed this gap, requiring on the part of the dead a
specific focus they could not easily achieve in order to make
their presence felt.
Well that's an interesting tidbit, Sena! I would have have guessed that the stronger egos of modern man were the thing preventing the dead from mingling with the living. But no, it is the dead being unable to achieve the specific focus necessary. My guess is that if I manage to develop that focus, after this body dies I still won't be able to get the attention of my physicalist friends, though. Their beliefs will make that impossible.
I don't have time to read the rest of this thread right now, but will be back to read later, and am really benefiting from all the ideas being tossed around here.
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18582#msg18582)
Solar system? That seems like a kind of weird thing. Why not beyond the solar system? There is matter well beyond it. It's just a strange rule to have in place. An arbitrary boundary set in physical matter.
Hi usmaak, Hi All,
Yeah, I picked up on a couple of limitations too. Seth didn't explain the how or whys of some of these limitations. Maybe he did elsewhere.
I did get that early on he mentioned that these dimensions (third, fourth, fifth) represented various capacities or stages of consciousness. Maybe this these limitations have to do with the limitations of these various stages of consciousness.
He also mentioned that the mental body had a form that was somewhere between matter and non-matter, while the psychic body does not exist in terms of matter. Maybe these limitations also have something to do with the makeup of these various body types.
-jbseth
Quote from: jbseth (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18581#msg18581)
Then again, a little further down in this same session he says, "Other systems exist with the same space occupied in your own, but you cannot perceive them."
jbseth, thanks for your quotes from TES6. This seems to be Seth's version of the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics.
The following is an extract from "Is There Life After Death? The Extraordinary Science of What Happens When We Die" by Anthony Peake:
"In Everett's version of events there is not a one in six
probability that a dice will fall giving a particular number but a one in one. The universe just splits
into six copies of itself and in each universe a different number comes up. In trying to explain away
a self-created universe, Everett has simply turned the egocentricity on its head.
We all exist in our
own universes not because we bring them into existence but because we all have our own private
universes anyway. Not only that but there are literally trillions of versions of each of us all living all
possible versions of our lives.The Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics is an enlightening, if not disturbing,
revelation. However, in the same way that the Copenhagen Interpretation has been seen to be
possible through the SUNY experiment so it is that evidence of these other universes has been
implied by the work of Oxford University physicist David Deutsch. Deutsch sensationally believes
that the presence of these universes can be detected by experimentation."
https://www.anthonypeake.com/product/is-there-life-after-death-the-extraordinary-science-of-what-happens-when-we-die/
Quote from: Sena (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18585#msg18585)
In Everett's version of events there is not a one in six
probability that a dice will fall giving a particular number but a one in one. The universe just splits
into six copies of itself and in each universe a different number comes up.
I really like this. It's a good way to explain it in simple terms that anyone can understand.
If only I could find a way to always land in the universe where it comes up how I want it. ;D
Quote from: usmaak (https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?msg=18586#msg18586)
If only I could find a way to always land in the universe where it comes up how I want it.
Yes, that is the challenge facing us.