~Speaking of Seth~

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
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
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
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.

Hi umsaak, Hi All,

That's a good one usmaak, you win. 

-jbserh

Quote from: jbseth
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
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

Quote from: Sena
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. 

Quote from: usmaak

Quote from: Deb

Quote from: Sena
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. 

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
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
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.






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.





-jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
"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
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
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
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.





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.





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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:




TES2, S68:


TES2, S69:


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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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
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

Quote from: usmaak
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
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.






-jbseth

Quote from: usmaak
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
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.

Quote from: jbseth
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
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

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
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
(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
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
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.