~Speaking of Seth~

Hi All,

About a year ago, I came across Session 840, in NOME. In this session Seth talked about the death of Jane and Rob's cat Billy. What Seth said here about Billy, animal consciousness and reincarnation, really caught me by complete surprise. That is, I was very surprised by this information because based upon what Seth had said in other earlier sessions, this was very different from my understanding of Seth's teachings on this topic.

As a result of this, for some time now, I've been trying to figure out, just exactly what Seth was saying here. Unfortunately a lot of this information was given in Sessions 837 through 839, with a lot of it coming specifically from S837. Sadly, two of these three sessions, S837 and S839, appear to have been "private" sessions that apparently never made it into any of Seth's or Jane's books, while S838 is apparently in TPS5.  Perhaps, this information may be located in the Yale Library data and maybe, someday, we'll get an opportunity to see what Seth had to say here.



More recently, I've come across another session, Session 903, in DEaVF1, where Seth apparently has more to say about this topic. Some of what Seth says in this later session seems to clear up a lot of what he was talking about in S840. Interesting enough, however, one of the comments that he makes in S903, seems to directly contradict a comment that he made in S840. Maybe, there really isn't a contradiction here. It may just be a misunderstanding on my part.



From Seth's teachings, it has been my understanding that everything has consciousness, from CU units, EE units, atoms, molecules, nails, rocks, cells, plants, trees, amoebas, worms, fish, lizards, horses and humans.  Furthermore Seth has also explained his ideas about the various gestalts of consciousness, as well as the fact that humans have many re-incarnational lives. Along with this, I also understood that many times Seth has said that consciousness forms matter, it is not the other way around.

Given this then, I have generally assumed that at some level, cats for example, have a level of consciousness and when the cat dies, it's consciousness leaves it body, in a way similar to what happens to a human.  Furthermore, as a result of Seth's teachings, I've come to believe that a cat had a cat consciousness, a beetle had a beetle consciousness and a human had a human consciousness.  However, it wasn't exactly clear to me how reincarnation worked for animals. I just assumed that it probably worked in ways similar to what happens to humans.

Then I discovered what Seth had to say in NOME, S840. In this session, Seth says the following:

"There is no such thing as a cat consciousness, basically speaking, or a bird consciousness. In those terms, there are instead simply consciousnesses that choose to take certain focuses."

What exactly does this mean?



In the two spoilers below, I've captured some of what Seth had to say about this topic in these two sessions. In NOME, S840, in Rob's notes before the session, Rob discusses the fact of Billy's death. Then the rest of this information is given in Rob's footnotes, after the session. In DEaVF1, S903, part of this information on this topic is given in the session itself and the rest is given in Rob's footnotes after the session.









Given this then, it seems to me that what Seth is telling us here is that for animals, reincarnation does occur. Not only this but when an animal does reincarnate, it does this by reincarnating within its own large division of life—the mammals, fish, birds, and so on.  Thus, a cat can reincarnate as a cat. However, it could also reincarnate as dog, for example as these are within the same large classification of life; the mammals.  On the other hand, a cat wouldn't reincarnate as either an eagle or a shark for example as these are different large classifications of life.


Seth also seems to be clear about the fact that there is no transmigration of the souls, between humans to animals.


Furthermore, in S903, Seth's seems to be telling us that humans do in fact reincarnate as humans. Here in this session he tells us that "I am including man as his own classification."  This makes a lot of sense, given that Seth tells us about several of his own lives (such as the man who sold donkey bells, at the time of Christ, the minor pope in the 3rd century, and the spice merchant during the middle ages). Along with this, he also told us about some of Jane's and Rob's previous lives, (such as their lives in the middle ages when Seth was a spice merchant and their lives in Boston in the 1800's).

However, in S840, Seth also seems to be suggesting that there is no consciousness that's meant to be human, when he says, "If there is no consciousness 'tailored' to be a cat's or a dog's, then there is no prepackaged, predestined, particular consciousness that is meant to be human, either ..."

I think that I must be missing something here, as these 2 statements in S903 and S840 don't seem to be compatible. 

Does anyone else here have any thoughts on what Seth may have meant by this?


-jbseth

Hi All

Hi Jbseth,

I just take it to mean there are no absolute rules. A consciousness can be what it wants to be. Though likely there's a general format that is followed. Perhaps a consciousness wants to experience being in the animal realm for awhile, then moves on to human, and experiences that for awhile. Still the consciousness can choose what it wants for any specific lifetime.
That's my take on it.

jbseth, a way to look at this that is not contradictory is that while a consciousness is not "tailored" to incarnate into a particular category, it can choose to focus on any of them. Once it has chosen that focus, it remains in that category of physical incarnations.

Jbseth, I think this is one of the most interesting topics and from what I've read from Seth and elsewhere I would say that there are two basic situations in the terms of a consciousness incarnating as an animal - A, the consciousness that is expanding to a point where it can handle being a human (or other higher functioning vehicle)  and B, the more advanced consciousness that just wants to experience being a cat or dog or whatever.

The universe wants consciousness to expand. Seth is clear that animals have  rules of behaviour defined for them, whereas humans have freewill. He is also clear that the animal hunted by the human knows he/she will be the human hunter one day.

All forms of consciousness whether they inhabit a rock a tree or a loved pet can be exposed to enough experience to trigger expansions in consciousness to allow them to progress to a more complex vehicle - be that human, dolphin or other.

In regard to Jane and Robert's cat, Seth says it has never been exposed to love like they have shown it. Some channels say that pets are the primary avenue by which some animal consciousnesses can develop, can expand and thereby be equipped to handle a human incarnation.

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules though and even though Seth says both that animals are not progressing up some ladder to be human he says this I think to dispell the incorrect human belief that we are the apex consciousness and moreover dispell the sense that there is any hierarchy to consciousness. He knows in our illusion hierarchy is a primary framework he also knows this framework is an illusion which he wants us to see through. If he feeds the notion that animals progress into humans ( though in many cases this might happen) he reinforces the negative belief in hierarchy.

Seth has a tough job on his hands, he is attempting to educate us on an impossibily complex and contradictory universe, if this was not hard enough we his audience dwell within a distortion where nothing is what it seems so all our reference points are way off. So even though what I put above is my viewpoint I'm prepared to be completely wrong about it because it is in all probabilities both right and wrong.

Just on personal note I and a friend often ask questions of the dowser/pendant. One favourite question is 'how many human incarnations has such and such person had?' Sometimes the answer comes back as one. Then we ask what were they before human, often the answer is a cat or dog, once it was a tree. For me that is enough evidence to believe that consciousness goes through incarnations and experiences to expand.

Hi JB

I think this whole concept of reincarnation is so confusing mostly because our views of personality, individuality, and so on are so limited.

If we wish to gain a deeper understanding, what we need first of all is

photo hosting

Let's try and reconsider the following statement you quoted in this light:

From Session 838 for March 5: "I want to avoid tales of the transmigration of the souls of men to animals, say — a badly distorted version of something else entirely. If there is no consciousness 'tailored' to be a cat's or a dog's, then there is no prepackaged, predestined, particular consciousness that is meant to be human, either ..."

The way I read this and some related statements by our favorite discarnate philosopher is that essentially everything exists in  a field of consciousness. This is in line with ancient neo-Platonic and Hermetic concepts of the World Soul which is conceptualized to encompass each individual consciousness. It likely also ties in with Jane's idea of an oversoul.

In fact, every system of metaphysics has something to say about the actual unity of all being! Not to mention modern quantum physics.

Now as readers of the Seth material, we may be used to the idea that our personality forms part of an "entity". In Seth's view, the latter includes rather much, however, we tend to think of it as an extension of the identity that we are so familiar with. Something with clearly defined borders, anyhow!

Personally, I took years to grasp Seth's repeated statement that the entity is not a closed system. Despite the fact that, in some sessions, he talks clearly talks about the interconnectedness of all consciousness.

Eventually I have come to think of it in a way that is best explained by a metaphor: I am currently located in a room inside a house situated in a small village in Switzerland. What I am fully aware of is only my most immediate environment, though, i.e. the room in which I sit. And yet I understand that I am also in my house, in my village, in my country, in Europe, on planet Earth, in the solar system, in the Milky Way, and so on - ALL AT THE SAME TIME!

Sounds trivial? The thing to appreciate is that  I am not MORE in my room than in any of those "other" locations, even though for the most part, my physical senses only cover the former. When in truth, all of the aforementioned locations correctly describe my whereabouts. As would be obvious if one were to start from a position let's say in extragalactic space and gradually zero in on my exact location!

Likewise, my psychological senses allow me (i.e. my ego) to only perceive so much of the psychological "space" in which I actually exist. And it is out of this "space" (my greater identity) that other foci can and will be formed - each with their own specific range and manner of psychological perception.

Several of these other identities that are formed out of the field of my greater identity will fall into a circle that circumscribes a region called "human consciousness", but others may be formed outside of it - be it as an animal (Seth's "fragments"?), as a tree, or even as an extraterrestrial being.

Does this help to clarify the issue?

Hi All,

Thanks for your comments. It seems to me that each one of you have captured an important part of this issue. Thanks for sharing your ideas here with me and please feel free to continue on.


I've been thinking about this issue some more lately, and I think that there are some additional Seth concepts that also play into this.  In DEAVF1, Ch 4, S894, (see spoiler below) Seth tells us that we have an inner self. He also tells us that this inner self forms our physical body and in addition to this, it also creates: 1) our body consciousness and 2) our conscious self.

Then, in addition to this (see the last paragraph in S894 spoiler) he tells us that these three systems of consciousness (the inner self, the body consciousness and the conscious self) operate in one way or another in all things in the physical universe; be they an atom, a rock, a fly, a human or a star.

From this then, I think that when we think about Billy the cat, we can also assume that in one way or another, Billy also consists of these three systems of consciousness; an inner self, a body consciousness and some form of a conscious self. That's one concept that plays into this.

In this way, I can see how there isn't really any "cat" consciousness. There's an inner self, that creates a cat body, and then along with this, it also creates a body consciousness and a conscious self, and this then, is what makes up Billy the cat.




Then, along with this, in SS, Appendix, S595, Seth talks about some of his reincarnational lives and reincarnation in general. In this session he says:

"These lives exist simultaneously across the board, however."

And along with this he also says:

"[...] Reincarnation, as it is usually explained, in terms of one life before another, is a myth; but a myth enabling many to partially understand facts that they would otherwise dismiss — insisting as they do upon the concept of a continuity of time."


From this then, whenever we think of Billy the cat and whenever we think about what he will reincarnate into, in his next life, this kind of thinking assumes that Billy's lives are lived sequentially, one after the other.

On the other hand, Seth tells us that life doesn't actually work like this. Seth tells us that to our Entity these lives are all lived simultaneously.

Thus, the issue about Billy being able to reincarnate as a mammal, but not a fish or a bird, for example, this concept seems to take on a very different look, when we think about all of these reincarnational lives, as being lived simultaneously. 

I haven't thought this concept all the way through yet, but I think there probably are some issues here that I haven't completely grasped, yet.





-jbseth

Hi All,

After this tumultuous year and this subject I got to thinking. Maybe after a few tumultuous life times maybe coming back as a stray dog would actually be a kind of therapeutic vacation!  Not saying that would appeal to everyone, I could see how it might to some. Especially if they went through a period of rapid growth.

Hi T.M., Hi All,

Seth says something similar in "Seth Speaks".

SS, Chapter 2: Session 514:

To this extent we indulge in relaxation and sleep, for we can spend a century as a tree or as an uncomplicated life form in another reality. We delight our consciousness with the enjoyment of simple existence. We may create, you see, the forest in which we grow. Usually however we are highly active, our full energies focused in our work and in new challenges.


-jbseth

Hi All,

Hi Jbseth,

I kind of do that now sometimes. If things get too crazy I imagine being a tree. Usually a big Redwood in an old growth forest. With lots of birds and other critters making their homes in the branches

This has been a very interesting topic for me, things came up that I'd not questioned before. And this post may already be behind the times, I've worked on it off and on all day and I'm posting it anyway!

So it seems to me Session 903 was pretty clear that reincarnation exists in all animal species. What about plants? And as mentioned, once a consciousness has chosen the larger classification of its physical existences, it stays within that framework in its reincarnational existences. "The animals chose to develop their own kind of consciousness, as you chose your own." —UR1 Section 2: Session 689 March 18, 1974

Also, while we reincarnate within our chosen classification, we are not completely limited by that: "In ways most difficult to explain, man "absorbed" an animal's spirit before he killed it, so that the spirit of the animal merged with his own. In using the animal's flesh, then, the hunter believed that he was giving the animal a new focus of existence. He could draw on the animal's strength, and the animal could join in human consciousness."
—NotP Chapter 6: Session 777, May 24, 1976

A human personality fragment can experience life as a tree, dog, whatever I guess. Seth had a dog fragment personality of his own. Wow, personality fragments could be a whole new interesting topic here. Seth said we are fragments of our entities, and yet we don't see ourselves as less than whole.

Quote from: Michael Sternbach
Eventually I have come to think of it in a way that is best explained by a metaphor: I am currently located in a room inside a house situated in a small village in Switzerland. What I am fully aware of is only my most immediate environment, though, i.e. the room in which I sit. And yet I understand that I am also in my house, in my village, in my country, in Europe, on planet Earth, in the solar system, in the Milky Way, and so on - ALL AT THE SAME TIME!

Great metaphor, which can go as far in the other direction to our body, cells, molecules, the EEs that create them, all the way to the beginning with consciousness units... I do remember Seth saying that since we are so focused on our current perspective, the person in the room in the house etc., that we have a very limited understanding of consciousness.

A couple of months ago I came across some mind blowing drawings (the link was right!) that shows a FUN visual of perspective, and the time has finally arrived to share! I think you need to be a member of Quora to actually see the original post, so I've done a series of screen captures and threw up a quick web page so you can get an idea. There are actually 31 images in the original post, but I only put up 13 and actually skipped some in-between images just so I could share this without it becoming overwhelming. The last illustration on Quora is Earth as viewed from a great distance, really just a pinpoint of light surrounded by black. Personally I think it's worth joining Quora just to see the entire series, my samples don't do it justice. Having dabbled in illustration and art, I can't imagine how much time and effort these took. But the "point" is well-illustrated and incredibly creative on the part of the artist.

Quick page: https://speakingofseth.com/perspective.html

Quora link: https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-mind-blowing-drawings-you-have-seen

Update: These are actually made by Hungary born artist Istvan Banyai. His wordless book named 'Zoom' was published in 1995, which contains all these illustrations. I'll buy it if I can, so darned clever!

Hi Deb,

I love it.  I was wondering if somehow the ending image, might somehow connect back to initial image, thus creating an infinite loop.

-jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
I was wondering if somehow the ending image, might somehow connect back to initial image, thus creating an infinite loop.

I don't know, good question. I ordered the book yesterday from Amazon for about 2 bucks plus shipping. I'll let you know.

Hi All,

I recently came across some information from Seth (S689) that seems directly related to this topic of consciousness, animals and reincarnation. This specific session come from UR1, Section 2.

In this session Seth says that about 30 million to 50 million years ago, there were many different kinds of consciousness. During this time, there were many different species, some of which we would consider to be mutated forms, man-animal and animal-man.  Seth says that some of these relationships would be remembered in our myths of the gods, such as in the totem poles.

Sometime after this time period, as man developed his conscious and ego consciousness grew, the animals also opted to develop their own kind of consciousness as well.

Seth says that as these consciousnesses developed, animal awareness became highly poised in the present moment, such that past and future are basically meaningless to them. He also says that as man's ego consciousness developed, it lost some of that present time focus in comparison.

Seth also says that the physical species that existed in this long ago time period became probable, to us as they did not develop here and became extinct instead.

There are many other interesting and related things that Seth shares with us in this session as well.






-jbseth

Hi All,

Along with all of this, I recently came across the following information which seems to support the idea that consciousness doesn't actually evolve over time, since all is simultaneous.

In session 683, Seth talks about a flower bulb and its flower and he relates this to a present self and its future self. In session 729, Seth talks about the fetus. In both of these two sessions, Seth seemed to be hinting at the idea that consciousness doesn't actually evolve, over time, because all time is simultaneous.


I find this idea of one of our future selves, reaching out and calling back to one of its past selves (our present self) and guiding it in its growth, to be very intriguing. 




UR1, Section 1, S683:

[... 29 paragraphs ...]

All directions taken by the flower of consciousness are good. The flower knows it is alive in the bulb, but it takes "time" for the bulb to let the stem and leaves and flower emerge. The flower is not better than the bulb. It is not even more progressed than the bulb. It is the bulb in one of its manifestations. So in your terms, it may seem as if there are progressions, or consecutive steps of development, in which more mature comprehensive selves will emerge. You are a part of those selves now, as the petals are of the bulb. Only in your system is that time period meaningful.

[... 4 paragraphs ...]

(Long pause, one of many.) All consciousness, in all of its forms, exists at once. It is difficult, without appearing to contradict myself, to explain. Go back to our bulb and flower. In basic terms they exist at once. In your terms, however, it is as if the flower-to-be, from its "future" calls back to the bulb and tells it how to make the flower. Memory operates backward and forward in time. The flower — calling back to the bulb, urging it "ahead" and reminding it of its (probable future) development — is like a future self in your terms, or a more highly advanced self, who has the answers and can indeed be quite practically relied upon. [...] Larger concepts of personhood will indeed lead you to some glimpse of the truly remarkable gestalts of consciousness from which you constantly emerge.



UR2, Section 6, S729:

The fetus itself, before its conception, responds to a self not yet physically apparent; and the future, in those terms, draws new life from the past. A reality of selfhood, an idea not yet materialized in the unformed future, reaches down into the past and brings that future into realization. The cells are imprinted with physical information in terms of space and time,3 but those data came from a reality in which space and time are formed.