~Speaking of Seth~

It does seem that Seth fails to take evil seriously:

"Basically there is no evil action. All is unfolding. With the limited perceptions that the ego has itself adopted, the whole is not visible, and it sees what it will see. Within your field, within your moral field, you must indeed strike out against that which appears evil to you. This is a responsibility laid upon you by the code of limitations which the ego itself has adopted as a part of its own nature. You may find it most difficult to follow me here without any strong affirmation. However, as you do not blame, as you do not morally blame the wind for the tumultuous hurricane, and as you do not punish the wind, so you must somehow manage to understand that a wrongdoer, in your eyes, is no more or less to blame than this. It would be foolhardy to ignore the results of such activity. Nevertheless, I tell you now that there is much you do not see or know." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 3 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts, Session 145)

https://amzn.eu/7ofWKsR

"While this may seem like the sheerest Pollyanna, nevertheless there is no evil in basic terms. This does not mean that you do not meet with effects that appear evil, but as you each move individually through the dimensions of your own consciousness, you will understand that all seeming opposites are other faces of the one supreme drive toward creativity." (from "The Nature of Personal Reality: Specific, Practical Techniques for Solving Everyday Problems and Enriching the Life You Know (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts)

https://amzn.eu/0V3O1Y4

One may contrast these ideas with what a book on the philosophy of evil says about the Nazi Adolf Eichmann:

"Caught up in a movement that renders individual agency and judgment superfluous,
Eichmann's conscience becomes elated, caught up in the "winged words" of Heinrich Himmler,
"who was the most gifted at solving problems of conscience" (Arendt 1963: 105). Elated,
Eichmann's voice of conscience was not silenced but rather transformed by being carried away,
caught up in the voice of another; his voice had literally been "voiced over" with the voice of
Himmler. Identified with the voice of Himmler, Eichmann's elated voice of conscience is now
transformed, losing its repugnance to commit evil:
And just as the law in civilized countries assumes that the voice of conscience tells
everybody, "Thou shalt not kill," even though man's natural desires and the inclinations may at times be murderous, so the law of Hitler's land demands that the voice of conscience tell everybody: "Thou shalt kill," although the organizers of the massacres knew full well that murder is against the normal desires and inclinations of most people.
(Hannah Arendt 1963: 150)6
In Eichmann's case, the transformation of his conscience and the overcoming of his repugnance
to committing evil was accomplished by turning basic instincts such as pity whereby we recoil
at the suffering of others back upon the self."

(The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Evil)

TBH, I've always struggled with Seth's concepts on evil (or lack thereof).  I always think about this sort of thing when there's a mass shooting here in the US, as there is almost every week now.  But going back through history...  well humanity is so full of evil actions.

As the opposition to good, I don't understand how anyone can say that evil doesn't exist.

Quote from: usmaak
TBH, I've always struggled with Seth's concepts on evil (or lack thereof).  I always think about this sort of thing when there's a mass shooting here in the US, as there is almost every week now.  But going back through history...  well humanity is so full of evil actions.

As the opposition to good, I don't understand how anyone can say that evil doesn't exist.

usmaak, yes it is a serious problem.
Here is another Seth statement which I find difficult to accept:

"In your dimension of activity there appear to be a wild assortment of evils. Let me tell you that he who hates an evil merely creates another one." (from "Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Chapter 12)

https://amzn.eu/i0KGPcz

Quote from: Sena
You may find it most difficult to follow me here without any strong affirmation. However, as you do not blame, as you do not morally blame the wind for the tumultuous hurricane, and as you do not punish the wind, so you must somehow manage to understand that a wrongdoer, in your eyes, is no more or less to blame than this. It would be foolhardy to ignore the results of such activity.

This is a weak argument, IMHO. Maybe from the view of Eternity, it could ultimately be true, but that's not what we're faced with in this life. Moral codes often focus on human intention, which of course cannot be compared with hurricanes. These are things he says that suggest he doesn't entirely "get it" when it comes to certain aspects of the human condition. Seth is not necessarily an ideal moral advisor, and he is not all-knowing.

To me, Seth is more like a science writer who has his own areas of specialized knowledge, and for that, he deserves attention and respect. He might be better off steering clear of a topic as difficult as the reality of evil in the world we live in. So, I don't automatically buy into what he says about such things, but still, he is a rare source.

Quote from: KylePierce
He might be better off steering clear of a topic as difficult as the reality of evil in the world we live in.

Kyle, if Seth had been silent on the topic of evil, or admitted that he didn't know anything about evil, I would be able to accept it. The problem is that Seth made a number of dubious statements on evil, as evident from the Seth search engine.

If we were to take Seth's view of evil as correct, how would that change the way we deal with what we call evil? That we call those who commit certain deeds or who believe in certain philosophies evil is to turn them into comic book villains. It is to simplify and categorize in a way that diminishes society's responsibility to explore alternative methods of dealing with the issues. It is an excuse to dehumanize, to demonize, to resort to violent "solutions"; to seek punishment over rehabilitation; to support the death penalty; to deny certain groups, races, or ethnicities equal rights; to invest in weapons of war at the expense of social welfare, clean water, education, and environmental protections.

Seth and others have said that it is better to love peace than to hate war.

Quote from: LarryH
If we were to take Seth's view of evil as correct, how would that change the way we deal with what we call evil?

Larry, if we agree with Seth that evil is no big deal, we may vote for a politician who has evil plans.
I am reading this book - "The Roots of Evil" by John Kekes. The examples he deals with are the Albigensian crusaders, Robespierre's reign of terror, Stangl's command of Treblinka, Argentinian "dirty-war" torturers, and  the Charles Manson murders. Spectacular evil does not happen every day.

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: LarryH
If we were to take Seth's view of evil as correct, how would that change the way we deal with what we call evil?

Larry, if we agree with Seth that evil is no big deal, we may vote for a politician who has evil plans.

Or we may excuse the person who shot up the grocery store down the street from me a couple of months back.  Or the kids that shot up Columbine High School.  Or that dude that killed a bunch of kids at Sandy Hook.

Perhaps from Seth's 10,000 foot view of humanity, it makes sense.  Maybe.  After all, he says that we decide on circumstances like this before our birth.  But for those of us who live our lives in this reality and see this kind of shit going on all of the time, as well as the many other atrocities carried out throughout history...  Well evil is as good an adjective as any, and, IMO, better than most.  If that means that I am dehumanizing and demonizing perpetrators of these atrocities, so be it.

A great question, lots of great responses.

There are some things from Seth I find harder to accept due to my "limited perceptions," and this is one of them. It ties in with the root assumption that opposites have a reality, therefore if good exists, then so does evil. And also there is the concept that we are in a simulation and that all the dramas are cooperative ventures, role playing, so there are no perpetrators and no victims, we are all players. But I'm still here on the planet and have to live with  what I see as evil actions done by and to people. And to me, pain and suffering are real.

Do I think Seth fails to take evil seriously? I guess it depends on if his explanation of "no evil action" is correct. We look to Seth to explain the nature of reality, assuming that from his perspective he knows more than us. Similarly, also in NoPR, Seth explained the relationship of love and hate, which also fits with Seth's "you will understand that all seeming opposites are other faces of the one supreme drive toward creativity."

"Love, therefore, can contain hate very nicely. Hatred can contain love and be driven by it, particularly by an idealized love. (Pause.) You "hate" something that separates you from a loved object. It is precisely because the object is loved that it is so disliked if expectations are not met. You may love a parent, and if the parent does not seem to return the love and denies your expectations, then you may "hate" the same parent because of the love that leads you to expect more. The hatred is meant to get you your love back. It is supposed to lead to a communication from you, stating your feelings — clearing the air, so to speak, and bringing you closer to the love object. Hatred is not the denial of love, then, but an attempt to regain it, and a painful recognition of circumstances that separate you from it."
—NoPR Chapter 21: Session 673, June 27, 1973

Quote from: LarryH
If we were to take Seth's view of evil as correct, how would that change the way we deal with what we call evil?

I think we're still light years away from thinking and acting from Seth's perspective. It's things like this that make me think, when we finally get it right, this classroom will cease to exist.

Quote from: Deb
But I'm still here on the planet and have to live with  what I see as evil actions done by and to people. And to me, pain and suffering are real.

This is exactly what I was trying to say, but in my bumbling, stumbling matter.  I'm sure that when Seth had his supposed incarnations on Earth, he was fully immersed in the duality of life here.

Quote from: Deb
I think we're still light years away from thinking and acting from Seth's perspective. It's things like this that make me think, when we finally get it right, this classroom will cease to exist.

That'd be fine with me.  This classroom sometimes sucks.

Quote from: Deb
Do I think Seth fails to take evil seriously? I guess it depends on if his explanation of "no evil action" is correct. We look to Seth to explain the nature of reality, assuming that from his perspective he knows more than us. Similarly, also in NoPR, Seth explained the relationship of love and hate, which also fits with Seth's "you will understand that all seeming opposites are other faces of the one supreme drive toward creativity."

I tend to believe that what Seth is "preaching" is the Big Picture version of things, where ultimately all dualities disappear. And Seth knows better than we do just how far away we are from being opened to that vision. So we could be justified in pleading, "We can't handle the truth!" But Seth won't accept such an answer, because he is on a mission. (From God? sorry, idk)

Quote from: Sena
Larry, if we agree with Seth that evil is no big deal, we may vote for a politician who has evil plans.

Quote from: Sena (quoting Seth)
Within your field, within your moral field, you must indeed strike out against that which appears evil to you. This is a responsibility laid upon you by the code of limitations which the ego itself has adopted as a part of its own nature.

Sena, I am not seeing where Seth says that "evil is no big deal". Clearly, he says that we have a responsibility toward what we call evil. And by the way, we have already voted for many politicians who had (what many would say) evil plans. Part of my point is that evil does not come with horns and a pitchfork. It may be viewed as an absence of "good", just as darkness is not a thing, but an absence of light. It is not a thing with weight, but rather a personal perception or judgment about some observed act or behavior. Hitler, I am sure, believed in evil, but I doubt that he saw himself as evil. There are indications that he was abused as a child. He saw evil in the way that the allies treated Germany after World War I, and he projected evil upon a religious subculture, justified in his own mind concentration camps, torture, enslavement, conquest, and genocide. Serial killers were almost universally abused as children. Those who do "evil" always have a rationale, distorted by their own warped background. The recent U.S. Capitol insurrection, threatening the lives of congress and the vice president and disrupting the legal process of ratifying a new president, was conducted by people who felt totally justified in their actions, who in their view wanted to right a wrong. The people of polar opposite viewpoints regarding abortion see the opposing side as evil. Evil needs to be viewed in a larger context that informs an expanded response, one that allows for creative solutions in Seth's "responsibility laid upon (us) by the code of limitations" that we have accepted in physical reality.

Hi All,

This is part of why I think its unfair to make a guru of anyone. Who says Seth has to have an answer that's tailor made for every individual reading his material?!  That's a really unfair burden to put on anyone. It also takes away the responsibility of the person asking the question to find the answer.

I think this is one of those questions that every individual living is going to have to answer and come to terms with on their own. I think it's one of the things we are here to learn, come to terms with, see how we do/dont fit in with, etc.

Seth said war will end when everyone refuses to fight, essentially. I suspect that's when evil will stop as well. When theres enough understanding in the general  population how and why  it comes about and refuses to be a part of it. If it isnt good for everyone,  it's good for none-imo.


In larger terms I don't think evil exists inherently as a thing of itself. Good and evil are constructs created by a perception of duality.  At this point in time, I think they are the direct results of the human ego, created over vast periods of time. And some of it on purpose to help keep a specific religion in power and control.
Theres also the responsibility we all have not to participate in what we perceive as evil. Whether it's a little evil, or a a huge monstrosity of an act. Yet how many of us actually live like that?
How many of us allow evil systems of government to exist, in all countries, for whatever reason,  to exist without changing it? Most people will usually say something to the effect of you cant fight city hall. Or its bigger than me, I'm just trying to survive myself. I got enough on my plate already. And that's just one example, from one section of life. How about emotional interactions with others? Business ethics, etc.

For all that though, I believe we are in a sim. This sim in particular will likely never change. It's doing exactly what it's designed to do, show the contrast and make you question. Let us all experience the highs and lows of duality existence.

Quote from: KylePierce
I tend to believe that what Seth is "preaching" is the Big Picture version of things, where ultimately all dualities disappear. And Seth knows better than we do just how far away we are from being opened to that vision. So we could be justified in pleading, "We can't handle the truth!" But Seth won't accept such an answer, because he is on a mission. (From God? sorry, idk)

Yes, certainly he was talking about the bigger picture—a POV we don't yet have. I couldn't help but notice that the first Seth quote about evil was from TES3, which was not meant to be book material at the time Seth as was speaking to Jane and Rob and so not meant for the general public. Other than Seth's dictated books, which I think he kept more basic, the majority of the rest in the personal, ESP class and early sessions were a result of questions posed by Rob, class members or visitors. This precedes the quote in the first post above, it explains a little more of where he was going with evil:

"Part of what I am about to say may sound callous, but you should see that such is not the case. From the viewpoint of the concerned and conscientious ego-self, truly there appears to be great and disastrous evils that overflow like poison the cup of human existence.

"When he sips of it, as you have sipped of it, and all human beings sip of it, then indeed the taste is bitter. It is not too farfetched however to add that all, or many, medicines have unfortunately a foul taste, and that the child who sips such a medicine finds it difficult to believe that such a distasteful brew can do him good.

"Basically, all action is. Basically there is no evil action...." The rest of the quote in the first post goes here, which ends with "I tell you now that there is much you do not see or know." There's a lot more to this session, he talks more about evil and our perception of evil, and hate. I'm attaching it below in case anyone wants to read more, it's very good.

Quote from: LarryH
Sena, I am not seeing where Seth says that "evil is no big deal". Clearly, he says that we have a responsibility toward what we call evil.

Yes, the rest of the session beyond the quote goes into more detail about that.

Quote from: LarryH
Hitler, I am sure, believed in evil, but I doubt that he saw himself as evil. There are indications that he was abused as a child.

I don't think he saw himself as evil either, he thought he was doing the world good by ethnic cleansing. Coincidentally, I was going to question that about Hitler in my previous post, what made him the way he was, I have no idea what his childhood was like. I don't think people are born haters, I think they are made haters, unless they are flat out mentally ill. Anyone who can actually kill or maim others, including animals, has to be mentally ill in my mind. Or fanatical.

"Fanatics exist because of the great gap between an idealized good and an exaggerated version of its opposite. The idealized good is projected into the future, while its exaggerated opposite is seen to pervade the present. The individual is seen as powerless to work alone toward that ideal with any sureness of success. Because of his belief in his powerlessness [the fanatic] feels that any means to an end is justified. Behind all this is the belief that spontaneously the ideal will never be achieved, and that, indeed, on his own man is getting worse and worse in every aspect: How can flawed selves ever hope to spontaneously achieve any good?"
—NoME Chapter 7: Session 854, May 16, 1979

Quote from: T.M.
This is part of why I think its unfair to make a guru of anyone. Who says Seth has to have an answer that's tailor made for every individual reading his material?!  That's a really unfair burden to put on anyone. It also takes away the responsibility of the person asking the question to find the answer.

Excellent point, thank you T.M.! It's also sometimes difficult figuring out what Seth meant by only an excerpt of what he was saying. Not that often, but sometimes.

Quote from: Deb
Hitler, I am sure, believed in evil, but I doubt that he saw himself as evil. There are indications that he was abused as a child.

I don't think he saw himself as evil either, he thought he was doing the world good by ethnic cleansing.

Deb, yes Hitler thought he was a saint. The following quote from the Law of One is not easy to understand because of the jargon, but it seems to be saying that any one of us could become a Hitler if the circumstances are right. If we knew about Hitler's other ("previous") incarnations we may be able to understand him better.

Quote35.4 Questioner: I would now like to ask for the same type of information with respect to Adolf Hitler. You have given a little of this already. It is not necessary to re-cover what you have already given, but if you could complete that information it would be helpful.

Ra: I am Ra. In speaking of the one you call Adolf we have some difficulty due to the intense amount of confusion present in this entity's life patterns as well as the great confusion which greets any discussion of this entity.
Here we see an example of one who, in attempting activation of the highest rays of energy while lacking the green-ray key, canceled itself out as far as polarization either towards positive or negative. This entity was basically negative. However, its confusion was such that the personality disintegrated, thus leaving the mind/body/spirit complex unharvestable and much in need of healing.
This entity followed the pattern of negative polarization which suggests the elite and the enslaved, this being seen by the entity to be of an helpful nature for the societal structure. However, in drifting from the conscious polarization into what you may call a twilight world where dream took the place of events in your space/time continuum, this entity failed in its attempt to serve the Creator in an harvestable degree along the path of service to self. Thus we see the so-called insanity which may often arise when an entity attempts to polarize more quickly than experience may be integrated.
We have advised and suggested caution and patience in previous communications and do so again, using this entity as an example of the over-hasty opening of polarization without due attention to the synthesized and integrated mind/body/spirit complex. To know your self is to have the foundation upon firm ground.

The following article (not to be taken too seriously) speculates on how Hitler might have re-incarnated:

https://www.ranker.com/list/signs-you-are-hitler-reincarnate/jacob-shelton

QuoteSouls are a tricky thing. They can flip flop around the universe doing whatever they want to do, but many people who believe in reincarnation think that if a soul is reborn, the person who takes on that soul will grow to look like the person to whom the soul originally belonged. That's the foundation behind the idea that Bashar Al-Assad (pictured here), the Syrian dictator who has committed mass acts of genocide on his own people, is the reincarnation of Hitler. Not only does he act an awful lot like Adolf, but he also looks a lot like the guy. At one point, he even grew Hitler's trademark mustache like it was no big deal. If there were ever evidence for Hitler being reincarnated, this is it.

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: Deb
Hitler, I am sure, believed in evil, but I doubt that he saw himself as evil. There are indications that he was abused as a child.

I don't think he saw himself as evil either, he thought he was doing the world good by ethnic cleansing.

Deb, yes Hitler thought he was a saint. The following quote from the Law of One is not easy to understand because of the jargon, but it seems to be saying that any one of us could become a Hitler if the circumstances are right. If we knew about Hitler's other ("previous") incarnations we may be able to understand him better.

Quote35.4 Questioner: I would now like to ask for the same type of information with respect to Adolf Hitler. You have given a little of this already. It is not necessary to re-cover what you have already given, but if you could complete that information it would be helpful.

Ra: I am Ra. In speaking of the one you call Adolf we have some difficulty due to the intense amount of confusion present in this entity's life patterns as well as the great confusion which greets any discussion of this entity.
Here we see an example of one who, in attempting activation of the highest rays of energy while lacking the green-ray key, canceled itself out as far as polarization either towards positive or negative. This entity was basically negative. However, its confusion was such that the personality disintegrated, thus leaving the mind/body/spirit complex unharvestable and much in need of healing.
This entity followed the pattern of negative polarization which suggests the elite and the enslaved, this being seen by the entity to be of an helpful nature for the societal structure. However, in drifting from the conscious polarization into what you may call a twilight world where dream took the place of events in your space/time continuum, this entity failed in its attempt to serve the Creator in an harvestable degree along the path of service to self. Thus we see the so-called insanity which may often arise when an entity attempts to polarize more quickly than experience may be integrated.
We have advised and suggested caution and patience in previous communications and do so again, using this entity as an example of the over-hasty opening of polarization without due attention to the synthesized and integrated mind/body/spirit complex. To know your self is to have the foundation upon firm ground.

Hi, this is better to read. And it is Seth himself:

"You must realize that Hitler believed that any atrocity was justified in the light of what he thought of as the greater good. To some extent or another, many of the ideals he held and advocated had long been accepted in world communities, though they had not been acted upon with such dispatch. The nations of the world saw their own worst tendencies personified in Hitler's Germany, ready to attack them. The Jews, for various reasons — and again, this is not the full story — the Jews acted as all of the victims of the world, both the Germans and the Jews basically agreeing upon "man's nefarious nature." For the first time the modern world realized its vulnerability to political events, and technology and communication accelerated all of war's dangers. Hitler brought many of man's most infamous tendencies to the surface. For the first time, again, the species understood that might alone did not mean right, and that in larger terms a world war could have no real victors. Hitler might well have exploded the world's first atomic bomb.

He believed in heroic characteristics, and became blinded by an idealized superman version of an Aryan strong in mind and body. To attain that end, Hitler was quite willing to sacrifice the rest of humanity. "The evil must be plucked out." That unfortunate chant is behind the beliefs of many cults — scientific and religious — and Hitler's Aryan kingdom was a curious interlocking of the worst aspects of religion and science alike, in which their cultish tendencies were encouraged and abetted.

How did Hitler's initially wishy-washy undefined ideals of nationalistic goodness turn into such a world catastrophe? The steps were the ones mentioned earlier (in a number of sessions in Part 3), as those involved with any cult. Hitler's daydreams became more and more grandiose, and in their light, the plight of his country seemed worsened with each day's events. He counted its humiliations over and over in his mind, until his mind became an almost completely closed environment, in which only certain ideas were allowed entry."
—NoME Chapter 7: Session 852, May 9, 1979

It looks that the events around WWII have to be understood in the context of the then prevailing collective belief systems on Earth. Hitler did not kill a single Jew. He killed a relative in Munich. Others did kill the Jews. This should not be forgotten. Hitler established a terror system in Europe with the help of the Germans (and others). And at the top of the agenda was the destruction of the Jews. This was in the end more important to the regime than winning the war when it came to resource allocation.

Had 'he' won the war reality would have looked terrible on the planet for a long time. Germans were in fact on the route to building the bomb. But for whatever reason Hitler was not interested. Goering planned to have planes ready by 1945/6 with a range of 5000 miles. The target would have been New York.

Think in terms of alternative realities. Hitler did not win the war in this timeline, and we have not destoyed the planet by nuclear war in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. There were four cases where it nearly happened. In one case it was a matter of minutes. It looks that we are all still here. We are here because we fit a reality with the vibration of our beliefs, thoughts and emotions, where the planet does not have to be destroyed. Neither partially nor entirely. But planets are being destroyed (asteroid belt). This is part of the spectrum of All-that-is. And it would be our task and in our own best interest, not to concentrate on negativities, in whatever form they appear and develop. We should develop a constructive and integrating approach. Reality is not physically real. We are constantly constructing a 3d illusion for the sake of having experiences which seem to be real. These experiences are then perceived as 'real' and add to the system, which is All-that-is (creation). Without the perception of 'physical reality', the quality of the experiences would be less intense. Similar to the difference between a good meal which is actually prepared and physically consumed and the same meal which is 'narrated'.

If it helps you on your 'good vs evil' path, think about the fact that the last time a WW was conducted on this planet, no nuclear weapons have been used (Japan aside). One year later things would have looked differently. And the outcome would or could have been entirely different. (This is not meant to relativize the camps).

This is a slippery topic. One should be cautious.

Quote from: Tob (quoting Seth)
He believed in heroic characteristics, and became blinded by an idealized superman version of an Aryan strong in mind and body. To attain that end, Hitler was quite willing to sacrifice the rest of humanity. "The evil must be plucked out."

Well, there you go. The person who most people might view as the most evil person in history thought that his personal mandate was to pluck out evil.

Quote from: Tob
And it would be our task and in our own best interest, not to concentrate on negativities, in whatever form they appear and develop. We should develop a constructive and integrating approach.

Well-said. It seems to me that a primary source of "evil" is hate. We hate war, so we draw it to us. We hate the evildoer, so the universe confirms our belief in evildoers. We draw to us what we fear. We focus our energy on punishment and society responds by getting sicker. A.S. Neil (author of Summerhill) said, "All hate is self-hate." Finger-pointing is often projection (and you don't have to look too closely at recent U.S. history to see examples of that). Any time I feel animosity toward another, I make it a point to look myself in the mirror, to see if I can identify that aspect of me that relates to what I do not like in another. I highly recommend that exercise.

Hi,

I thought that maybe someone hear should perhaps speak to what Seth himself, has to say about opposites, good and evil and why evil doesn't exist.


In "Seth Speaks", Seth had some interesting things to say about opposites, good and evil and why evil doesn't exist. He discusses these ideas in three specific sessions. These 3 sessions can be found in this book in Chapter 11, Session 546, Chapter 12, Session 550, and Chapter 21, Session 587.


In Chapter 11, Session 546, starting 3 paragraphs down from the paragraph timestamped (9:53), and for the next 13 paragraphs, Seth talks about opposites and how a theology of opposites is detrimental. Further down in this same session, he talks about how a strong belief in opposites can be highly detrimental as it can prevent an understanding of the facts. A little further down he talks about how a belief in good without a belief in evil, while seemingly highly unrealistic, can be the best kind of insurance you can have in both physical life and afterward. Following this he points out how, by believing in evils, you will of course perceive them.

Then, toward the end of these 13 paragraphs, in the last two of these paragraphs, he talks about, "The experiment that would transform your world." Here he basically says that this would consist of the idea that: 1) you create your reality according to your beliefs, 2) all existence was blessed and 3) that evil did not exist in the world. Seth says that if these ideas were followed individually and collectively, then our physical senses would find no contradiction and they would perceive the world and existence as good.



In Chapter 12, Session 550, Seth says the following:

"I spoke earlier of rigid concepts of right and wrong. There is only one way to avoid this problem. Only true compassion and love will lead to an understanding of the nature of good, and only these qualities will serve to annihilate the erroneous and distortive concepts of evil.

(10:28.) The simple fact is that as long as you believe in the concept of evil, it is a reality in your system, and you will always find it manifested. Your belief in it will, therefore, seem highly justified. If you carry this concept through succeeding generations, through reincarnations, then you add to its reality."




In Chapter 21, Session 587, starting 1 paragraph above the paragraph timestamped (11:25) Seth talks about opposites and good and evil. In the next 5 paragraphs, Seth talks about the issues with opposites. In these paragraphs, he talks about how we are teaching ourselves how to handle energy, to be conscious co-creators. He says that one of the stages of development is learning how to deal with opposites as realities.
He says that in our terms the ideas of good and evil, help us to recognize the sacredness of existence, and the responsibility of consciousness. He says that the ideas of opposites are necessary guidelines for the developing ego. He also tells us that the inner self knows quite well that unity exists.


-jbseth

Quote from: LarryH
It seems to me that a primary source of "evil" is hate. We hate war, so we draw it to us. We hate the evildoer, so the universe confirms our belief in evildoers. We draw to us what we fear. We focus our energy on punishment and society responds by getting sicker. A.S. Neil (author of Summerhill) said, "All hate is self-hate." Finger-pointing is often projection (and you don't have to look too closely at recent U.S. history to see examples of that). Any time I feel animosity toward another, I make it a point to look myself in the mirror, to see if I can identify that aspect of me that relates to what I do not like in another. I highly recommend that exercise.

'When man realizes that he himself creates his personal and universal environment in concrete terms, then he can begin to create a private and universal environment much superior to the one that is the result of haphazard and unenlightened constructions. This is our main message to the world, and this is the next line in
man's conceptual development' (session 83)

In Jane's apartment, in the presence of Robert Butts and the cat Willy, staring at a bug, there were four universes, created by Jane, Robert, the cat Willy and the bug. Overlapping in one single point which can be mathematically deduced (Seth) and which is also the point through which the connection with Seth is organized. (Of course there were actually four apartments as well).

If we understand that everybody of  us is constructing, i.e. creating and re-creating our own version of our universe, including all the other persons in it, plus cat Willy, the bug, the chair and the table, we would approach the issue of good and evil differently. Because we would understand that everything is our construction (Seth). This applies to and includes all the news and stories reaching us via the media as well. Positive and negative, because they are currently being co-created in our own universe.

It looks that Seth brought the description of the construction of matter/universes to a preliminary end around session 85 (end of  'Early Sessions Vol. 2'). He was very proud and satisfied as this information was/is expected to lay the groundwork for 'all the other information to come'.

And in fact, it is key. If it is true that everybody is constructing a separate universe, then the question of experiencing good things and not so good things, becomes a question of CREATING and CO-CREATING. The interface issue becomes paramount.

According to Bashar there may be 10 percent, or 40 percent, or 70 percent of  the consciousness of the other person 'in the construction of the other person', constructed by us in our own universe. They have their own agenda. We are learning from them 'in good and bad times' and so do they. They are learning from us. According to Bashar it is us to decide how far we are prepared to go in a specific personal interaction with 'others'. There is a common consensus on a higher level (Bashar).

(This is the most precise information so far from Bashar. I have not yet found the respective information in the Seth material. According to Bashar – in the earlier materials which are no longer available – hatred and aggression displayed against somebody else, are like a rocket. We are burnt and violated by the propulsion system, being the ones launching the rockets (metaphorically speaking). On the other hand, Seth's information on violence, defense mechanisms, etc. is not yet clear to me. Not conclusive so far. In any case he is warning against glossing all conflicts over with a kind of 'Pollyanna'- approach. Simply smiling problems away is definitely not his message. He clearly encourages us to investigate the underlying belief systems which led to the situation.

'Leading to a situation' is understood psychologically in the case of Seth, against the background of the description of the physical production of our respective universes. 'Leading to a situation' is clearly understood physically by Bashar in the sense of choosing an alternative path, thus ending up on a different timeline and in a parallel reality. The underlying dynamic is in both cases, Bashar and Seth, based on belief systems. Seth devoted a whole book on that topic (Nature of Personal Reality).

According to Bashar 'All-that-is' is composed of 50 percent 'positive' and nearly 50 percent 'negative' energy, with a balance point in between representing the 'free will'. Thus the 'universe/multiverse' is slightly tilted towards the positive side. We always have a choice. The entire 'system' is characterized by the yin-yang symbol. There is always darkness in the light, and there is always light in the darkness. But we are free to choose. The darker the background, the brighter the shining of a tiny torch. Negativity is per se not to be understood as 'bad' or 'evil'. Negative is that which separates, disintegrates. Positive is that which unites and integrates.

If there is an infinite (Bashar) or nearly infinite (Seth) number of versions of us, materializing all kinds of alternative paths, the issue of 'good or evil' has definitely to be approached differently. (Similar to the case that it would turn out that our behavior is linearly determined by our genes, which would put our judicial systems upside down). Both sources, Bashar and Seth, stress that we are just perceiving parts of larger events.

According to Bashar, there is a reality in which JFK was not killed in 1963. He lived until 1984. There is another version where he was not killed in 1963, but later (for the premature disclosure of the existence of extraterrestrials and the ensuing commotion). According to Bashar the killing of JFK sent ripples through the space-time continuum into our current timeline as the result of which Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy have been killed. According to him we may change our history again and end up collectively in the initial timeline where JFK had not been killed.

According to Seth, there is an alternative version of Earth where JFK has not been killed. A few days after the assassination of JFK in THIS timeline, a very high ranking Sumari officer appeared somewhere in a little town in the US. His name is Seth.

According to Seth, 'any probability' is materialized somewhere. Thus, the (threshold of) probability becomes a qualifier for alternative timelines. Bashar does not really use the term 'probability'. To him everything does exist, as creation is infinite. According to Seth, there are idea constructions outside of 'physical reality' which are weaker, i.e. 'pre-physical' in a sense'. And we are investigating alternative pathways for the next days in our dream states as well. 

Quote from: Tob
According to Seth, there is an alternative version of Earth where JFK has not been killed. A few days after the killing of JFK in THIS timeline, a very high ranking Sumari officer appeared somewhere in a little town in the US. His name is Seth.

Hi Tob,

I'm curious about your statement above, did Seth actually says this himself somewhere? If so, would you mind telling me which book, chapter, session #, etc. this came from? I'd like to read it for myself to see if I can understand what Seth was saying here.

Thanks.

-jbseth

Quote from: jbseth

Quote from: Tob
According to Seth, there is an alternative version of Earth where JFK has not been killed. A few days after the killing of JFK in THIS timeline, a very high ranking Sumari officer appeared somewhere in a little town in the US. His name is Seth.

Hi Tob,

I'm curious about your statement above, did Seth actually says this himself somewhere? If so, would you mind telling me which book, chapter, session #, etc. this came from? I'd like to read it for myself to see if I can understand what Seth was saying here.

Thanks.

-jbseth

Hi, the reference to Kennedy is somewhere in the material. Actually, I stumbled over it quite recently in some Seth-related comments. The problem is, 'Finding Seth' is not 'complete'. Obviously for copyright reasons. And it looks that not all material has been published.

Seth's entire oeuvre is meant and designed to be read literally. There is nothing metaphorical. And he is quite clear that it is of paramount importance that readers are able to understand the information.

He constantly encouraged both, Jane and Robert to read scientific literature dealing with quantum physics, astrophysics etc, to develop the vocabulary necessary for the correct transmission of the basics. And the basics are the physics of the material construction and constant re-construction of our individualized universes, in Vol. 2 of the 'Early Sessions'. In principle one should start there, not with 'Seth Speaks'. In Vol 1 of the early sessions he realized that he had occasionally gone too far and fast. It was a kind of an experiment. Trial and error. Distortions were the result.

Quote from: jbseth

Quote from: Tob
According to Seth, there is an alternative version of Earth where JFK has not been killed. A few days after the killing of JFK in THIS timeline, a very high ranking Sumari officer appeared somewhere in a little town in the US. His name is Seth.

Hi Tob,

I'm curious about your statement above, did Seth actually says this himself somewhere? If so, would you mind telling me which book, chapter, session #, etc. this came from? I'd like to read it for myself to see if I can understand what Seth was saying here.

Thanks.

-jbseth

jbseth, welcome back. The idea that there is a probable reality in which JFK was NOT killed casts doubt on the entire Seth doctrine of probable realities.

Quote from: Tob

Quote from: jbseth

Quote from: Tob
According to Seth, there is an alternative version of Earth where JFK has not been killed. A few days after the killing of JFK in THIS timeline, a very high ranking Sumari officer appeared somewhere in a little town in the US. His name is Seth.

Hi Tob,

I'm curious about your statement above, did Seth actually says this himself somewhere? If so, would you mind telling me which book, chapter, session #, etc. this came from? I'd like to read it for myself to see if I can understand what Seth was saying here.

Thanks.

-jbseth

Hi, the reference to Kennedy is somewhere in the material. This, together with the 'blinking of the universe' had been regularly the reason to kick me out of the reading. Recently, I stumbled over it in some comments as well, thus suddenly remembering again. The problem is, 'Finding Seth' is not 'complete'. Obviously for copyright reasons. And it looks that not all material has been published.

The reference to the high rank is Seth's own statement. Somewhere in UR. Possibly a quotation in one of Robert Butts' footnotes. Both terms 'high rank' and 'officer' come from Seth directly. I was astonished as it looks that there are some structures.

Hope this helps. Over the past two years I was reading the Seth books again. Contrary to the 80s where I was just enthusiastic but could not understand the text, now I was reading every single sentence, every single word. Seth's entire oeuvre is meant and designed to be read literally. There is nothing metaphorical. And he is quite clear that it is of paramount importance to him that the readers are able to understand his information.

He constantly encouraged both, Jane and Robert to read scientific literature dealing with quantum physics, astrophysics etc, to develop the vocabulary necessary for the correct transmission of the basics. And the basics are the physics of the material construction and constant re-construction of our individualized universes, in Vol. 2 of the 'Early Sessions'. In principle one should start there, not with 'Seth Speaks'. In Vol 1 of the early sessions he realized that he had occasionally gone too far and fast. It was a kind of an experiment. Trial and error. Distortions were the result.

To the best of my knowledge the JFK reference is provided by Robert Butts in one of the footnotes. I am sure a read it. Because I was so irritated. But it should not be per se astonishing if we take it for granted that there is an infinite or nearly infinite number of versions of us. And this is exactly what Seth is saying. In my case it was exactly that piece of information (Kennedy) which brought me to the decision to put all Seth books aside many years ago, with the exception of 'Seth Speaks'. And in addition, I could not understand the issue of the 'blinking of the universe' either. I had been also absolutely lost when it came to the Christmas tree analogy in UR2, or to occasional statements acccording to which 'some universes' are too fast for the synapses to be processed, while others are too slow' (Seth in Nature of Personal Reality). If the basics are understood, such statements become clear, at least clearer. (Theoretically everything could still be made up, but it looks coherent, and not like a porridge of unrelated 'something'. To me, many years ago, UR was exactly that: a porridge of unrelated 'something').

The Seth statements are even 'crazier' when it comes to the reconstruction of various timelines of our history. According to him we are able to change our future by changing the past by changing the memories of our cells by changing our present belief systems. Thus we have access to a modified future we would otherwise not have access to. (Nature of Personal Reality). This corresponds to Bashar but it is far more radical as a concrete physiological description of the mechanisms is seemingly provided as well.

Quote from: Tob
The Seth statements are even 'crazier' when it comes to the reconstruction of various timelines of our history. According to him we are able to change our future by changing the past by changing the memories of our cells by changing our present belief systems. Thus we have access to a modified future we would otherwise not have access to. (Nature of Personal Reality). This corresponds to Bashar but it is far more radical as a concrete physiological description of the mechanisms is seemingly provided as well.

Tob, thanks for the comparison.

Quote from: Sena
The idea that there is a probable reality in which JFK was NOT killed casts doubt on the entire Seth doctrine of probable realities.

Sena, what about this particular example casts doubt on the doctrine?

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: Tob
The Seth statements are even 'crazier' when it comes to the reconstruction of various timelines of our history. According to him we are able to change our future by changing the past by changing the memories of our cells by changing our present belief systems. Thus we have access to a modified future we would otherwise not have access to. (Nature of Personal Reality). This corresponds to Bashar but it is far more radical as a concrete physiological description of the mechanisms is seemingly provided as well.

Tob, thanks for the comparison.

Hi Sena, the timeline issue can provide some 'relief' to the 'good and evil' conundrum, as there is enough 'space' for the materialization of everything. But it implies to accept that the picture may be bigger. And 'no' we do not fully understand it, yet.

In this context it is important as well to remember that creation is - at least according to Seth - nested. Our lives may seem biased or unbalanced, but it may be that from the point of view of the oversoul, the larger entity, this is exactly what is needed most. That may also help a bit to approach the issue of 'good and evil' or may be rather 'success or failure' in life etc. from a different perspective.

And there are obviously aspects we cannot understand at the moment. There is a clear statement in the Seth material that we cannot currently grasp the larger picture. There is finally an explicit formulation in 'Nature of Personal Reality' (towards the end) according to which the physiological development of mankind has not yet come to an end. There will be a point in time in the future when we do no longer sleep and we will reach a state at which we will 'know what we need to know when we need to know it'. We will receive information directly. Whatever that means.

Quote from: Tob
In this context it is important as well to remember that creation is - at least according to Seth - nested. Our lives may seem biased or unbalanced, but it may be that from the point of view of the oversoul, the larger entity, this is exactly what is needed most. That may also help a bit to approach the issue of 'good and evil' or may be rather 'success or failure' in life etc. from a different perspective.

Tob, I posted on another thread about the Holocaust from the point of view of the "victims". According to the Seth view, every one of the 6 million victims chose that kind of death. I am willing to accept that. I think it was the individual personality who chose that, not the entity. The entity would not impose such a choice on any of its personalities. A similar point was made with regard to the Covid 19 pandemic. Every person who dies of that disease made the choice. That is what Creating One's Own Reality is all about.

The following is a link to the thread about a book written from the point of view of a Holocaust victim:

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=2366.msg19048#msg19048

Hi Tob, Hi Sena, Hi All,

Perhaps I should have been a little more clear about my previous question. I have absolutely no issue with Seth's probable reality concepts and I personally accept them as a major part of his philosophy. That is, I have no issue with the part of your comment where you said, "According to Seth, there is an alternative version of Earth where JFK has not been killed." Seth does stress this concept in many places.

For example, in TES6, Session 248, he says the following:

"Actions, even historic actions, within your system, have their reality you see in other systems also, though they will be perceived in quite a different manner. Remember some of the main points I gave you on probabilities. You see, in some dimension Napoleon conquered Europe completely, and the actions resulting from that probability continue in that dimension."



The question that I had, had to do with the part of your comment where you said that Seth said the following, "A few days after the killing of JFK in THIS timeline, a very high ranking Sumari officer appeared somewhere in a little town in the US. His name is Seth."

Initially, I thought that what Seth was saying here, was that "he himself, Seth" had appeared somewhere in the US. But this isn't necessarily what he was saying here. But then again, maybe it was?

This was the reason for my question. I just wanted to know if Seth really did say this and if so, where he said it. I wanted to be able to read this for myself so that I could understand what Seth was trying to say here.



The problem for me here is this, in the past, in this forum, we've had some people say that Seth said some pretty interesting and in some cases, outlandish things. Typically, whenever, anyone asked them where, (what book, chapter, session, appendix, etc.) Seth actually said these things, they would respond with, "I don't remember".

From my personal experience in dealing with this, I typically don't just automatically accept something that someone here in the forum says, that Seth has said, without checking it out for myself. Especially if it sounds somewhat counter to what Seth has said in other places. This is one of the reasons why some of the people here in this forum reference their Seth comments.

For me personally, whenever I can't verify a comment like this, I just file it away in a mental bucket where I keep things that "may or may not be true".



Hi Sena,

Can you perhaps explain your comment where you said that the idea that there is a probable reality in which JFK was NOT killed, casts doubt on the entire Seth doctrine of probable realities?  How would that be any different than Napoleon completely conquering Europe?

-jbseth

Quote from: LarryH

Quote from: Sena
The idea that there is a probable reality in which JFK was NOT killed casts doubt on the entire Seth doctrine of probable realities.

Sena, what about this particular example casts doubt on the doctrine?

Larry, I am questioning the doctrine of probable realities in general. This particular example is a striking one. If I meet someone who has spoken to JFK since 1964 I might change my mind.

Quote from: jbseth
Hi Sena,

Can you perhaps explain your comment where you said that the idea that there is a probable reality in which JFK was NOT killed, casts doubt on the entire Seth doctrine of probable realities?  How would that be any different than Napoleon completely conquering Europe?

-jbseth

jbseth, whether it is Napoleon or JFK, my position is the same. "The Man in the High Castle" is an interesting work of fiction, but it is just fiction.

The important question is about creating one's own reality. I think this is possible to a limited extent because each us shares the consciousness of All That Is, but we need to recognize the limits.

Quote from: Sena
Larry, I am questioning the doctrine of probable realities in general. This particular example is a striking one. If I meet someone who has spoken to JFK since 1964 I might change my mind.

The 'you' that chose the probable reality in which JFK was assassinated in 1963 cannot meet someone who had spoken to JFK in 1964. That person would exist in a different probable reality. That is, unless we are talking about the Mandela effect. But if that were the case, that person's memory of speaking to JFK in 1964 would simply be "false" in this probability.

Quote from: jbseth
Hi Tob, Hi Sena, Hi All,

Perhaps I should have been a little more clear about my previous question. I have absolutely no issue with Seth's probable reality concepts and I personally accept them as a major part of his philosophy. That is, I have no issue with the part of your comment where you said, "According to Seth, there is an alternative version of Earth where JFK has not been killed." Seth does stress this concept in many places.

For example, in TES6, Session 248, he says the following:

"Actions, even historic actions, within your system, have their reality you see in other systems also, though they will be perceived in quite a different manner. Remember some of the main points I gave you on probabilities. You see, in some dimension Napoleon conquered Europe completely, and the actions resulting from that probability continue in that dimension."



The question that I had, had to do with the part of your comment where you said that Seth said the following, "A few days after the killing of JFK in THIS timeline, a very high ranking Sumari officer appeared somewhere in a little town in the US. His name is Seth."

Initially, I thought that what Seth was saying here, was that "he himself, Seth" had appeared somewhere in the US. But this isn't necessarily what he was saying here. But then again, maybe it was?

This was the reason for my question. I just wanted to know if Seth really did say this and if so, where he said it. I wanted to be able to read this for myself so that I could understand what Seth was trying to say here.



The problem for me here is this, in the past, in this forum, we've had some people say that Seth said some pretty interesting and in some cases, outlandish things. Typically, whenever, anyone asked them where, (what book, chapter, session, appendix, etc.) Seth actually said these things, they would respond with, "I don't remember".

From my personal experience in dealing with this, I typically don't just automatically accept something that someone here in the forum says, that Seth has said, without checking it out for myself. Especially if it sounds somewhat counter to what Seth has said in other places. This is one of the reasons why some of the people here in this forum reference their Seth comments.

For me personally, whenever I can't verify a comment like this, I just file it away in a mental bucket where I keep things that "may or may not be true".



Hi Sena,

Can you perhaps explain your comment where you said that the idea that there is a probable reality in which JFK was NOT killed, casts doubt on the entire Seth doctrine of probable realities?  How would that be any different than Napoleon completely conquering Europe?

-jbseth

Hi everybody.

'...and as I may add, I high ranking one.' This is what I definitely remember. It is a direct quotation, not an indirect one. And it is provided by Robert Butts in the footnotes to UR. Plausibly after or in the context of the description of the nine 'families'. This quotation may have been provided in the context of the description of the Sumari family.

The formulation with the few days and the little town are my words. But the proximity to the assassination is definitely given. Whether the relationship is causal, I don't know.

One of the traits of Seth seems to be a modest approach. It looks that he was a bit angry when Jane Roberts and Robert Butts decided unilaterally to approach the American Psychological Society (Vol 2, 'Early Sessions').

Regarding probable timelines please have a look at the drawings provided by Robert Butts in Jane's 'Access' book.

In one of my earlier contributions to this blog I provided a link to a page where all the books with the exception of Vol. 4 of the 'Early Sessions' can be downloaded. It does not look illegal. You are entitled to download 5 titles per day for free. For more you would have to become an official member. They are offering access to 7 millions of books and 90 millions or articles, hence, it cannot be illegal. They are too big.

If you flip through the 'Aspect' book you see the depiction of probable/alternate realities and the respective timelines. Imagine that they had bothered to add the alternative Earths as well in the picture. You can easily see that there is a space problem: 'Where are all these other realities and universes and timelines physically. They are nowhere. They are here. Because everything is here. And everything is virtual. Produced by the outer senses in line with a specific vibratory rate corresponding to a specific selection of realities which can be processed by the synapses - given the current rate of vibration.

Only then do the Seth formulations regarding the synapses, the universes which are too fast or too slow, and the Christmas tree analogy make sense.

The universe is virtual. Like a 3d computer simulation with us as living Avatars IN the game. This virtual reality game is reproduced at the rate of Planck time (Tom Campbell). In Jane's vernacular (another one was not available: 'it is blinking'.

Quote from: LarryH

Quote from: Sena
Larry, I am questioning the doctrine of probable realities in general. This particular example is a striking one. If I meet someone who has spoken to JFK since 1964 I might change my mind.

The 'you' that chose the probable reality in which JFK was assassinated in 1963 cannot meet someone who had spoken to JFK in 1964. That person would exist in a different probable reality. That is, unless we are talking about the Mandela effect. But if that were the case, that person's memory of speaking to JFK in 1964 would simply be "false" in this probability.

Larry, parallel universes do exist in fiction:

QuoteParallel universes as a result of time travel can serve simply as the backdrop, or it may be a central plot point. The Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove, where the Confederate Army is given thousands of AK-47 rifles and ends up winning the American Civil War, is a good example of the former, while Fritz Leiber's novel The Big Time where a war between two alternative futures manipulating history to create a timeline that results in or realizes their own world is a good example of the latter.

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

I have just started watching  The Cloverfield Paradox, which is available on Netflix. (I won't give away the plot, but Seth may have been a consultant script-writer)

Hi Tob, Hi Sena

Hi Tob,

Thanks for sharing your comments on this statement. It does seem reasonable to me that this comment is located somewhere in UR2. Seth talks quite a bit about the families of consciousness and the Sumari in that book.



Hi Sena,

Over the years, you and I have often had very different beliefs about many of Seth ideas and concepts. I can definitely understand how a person might not believe Seth's ideas having to do with the existence of probable realities. While I don't necessarily agree with you on some of your ideas, I do find value in many of the things that you have said and shared in this forum. Thank you for that.


-jbseth

Sena, it appears that you simply do not accept the possibility of probable realities. My question was per the JFK comment and why that specific example made it clear to you that there was no such thing as probable realities.

Quote from: LarryH
Sena, it appears that you simply do not accept the possibility of probable realities. My question was per the JFK comment and why that specific example made it clear to you that there was no such thing as probable realities.

Larry, so we agree on this? That's good.
To be precise, I shall not at present live my life on the basis of probable realities, but I am aware that my mental capacities are limited, and there could be surprises in store.

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: Tob
In this context it is important as well to remember that creation is - at least according to Seth - nested. Our lives may seem biased or unbalanced, but it may be that from the point of view of the oversoul, the larger entity, this is exactly what is needed most. That may also help a bit to approach the issue of 'good and evil' or may be rather 'success or failure' in life etc. from a different perspective.

Tob, I posted on another thread about the Holocaust from the point of view of the "victims". According to the Seth view, every one of the 6 million victims chose that kind of death. I am willing to accept that. I think it was the individual personality who chose that, not the entity. The entity would not impose such a choice on any of its personalities. A similar point was made with regard to the Covid 19 pandemic. Every person who dies of that disease made the choice. That is what Creating One's Own Reality is all about.

The following is a link to the thread about a book written from the point of view of a Holocaust victim:

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=2366.msg19048#msg19048

Thanks

Quote from: Sena
Larry, so we agree on this? That's good.

No, we do not agree, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. This is getting comical. Clearly, our minds work differently. I am not saying that you are wrong and I am right. I am simply incapable of following your logic. I think probable realities are an interesting concept, but we can at least agree that the concept is not very useful as a day-to-day guide on how one conducts one's life. We might as well be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (42, in case anybody wants to know).

Modification: Looking back on what I said that got you to think that I agreed with you, I will clarify that when I asked how the JFK thing made something clear to you, it did not mean that it was clear to me, but I can see how that might follow in your view.

BTW in between working on stuff this morning I've been following this topic. Very enjoyable.

I tried searching in a few different places for a quote about JFK in both UR1 and UR2, and couldn't pin it down. UR2 has the families of consciousness material. The search engine has all the footnotes in the database, and even there I couldn't find anything. So if anyone comes across it, please share. Thanks!

Quote from: Deb
BTW in between working on stuff this morning I've been following this topic. Very enjoyable.

I tried searching in a few different places for a quote about JFK in both UR1 and UR2, and couldn't pin it down. UR2 has the families of consciousness material. The search engine has all the footnotes in the database, and even there I couldn't find anything. So if anyone comes across it, please share. Thanks!

"We may not be able to pin Seth — as that energy personality essence calls himself — down to one physical race, but he is a Sumari: "And a very high lieutenant indeed, I will have you know," he told us with much humor in his first session on the Sumari family of consciousness, the 598th for November 24, 1971."
—UR2 Section 6: Session 734 January 29, 1975

Quote from: Tob
"We may not be able to pin Seth — as that energy personality essence calls himself — down to one physical race, but he is a Sumari: "And a very high lieutenant indeed, I will have you know," he told us with much humor in his first session on the Sumari family of consciousness, the 598th for November 24, 1971."
—UR2 Section 6: Session 734 January 29, 1975

Thank you for putting me out of my misery, I would have been trying to track it down all day. 

Quote from: LarryH
No, we do not agree, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Larry, the problem is that you are perpetually sitting on the fence where the Seth teachings are concerned, while you try to give the impression that you are a devout orthodox Setian. Do you, or do you not, agree with Seth's teachings on probable realities?

Quote from: Sena
No, we do not agree, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
Larry, the problem is that you are perpetually sitting on the fence where the Seth teachings are concerned, while you try to give the impression that you are a devout orthodox Setian. Do you, or do you not, agree with Seth's teachings on probable realities?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Maybe I've missed some history here, but I find this hilarious. I have to ask WWJS (What would Jane say?) If you see a devout orthodox Setian on the road... kill him?

Also, I didn't realize the proper spelling is Setian? not Sethian? Or maybe it differs from one dialect to another?

Quote from: Sena
Larry, the problem is that you are perpetually sitting on the fence where the Seth teachings are concerned, while you try to give the impression that you are a devout orthodox Setian. Do you, or do you not, agree with Seth's teachings on probable realities?

I have no reason to doubt what Seth says about probable realities. That being said, I doubt that it is all that important as a guide on how one conducts one's life. There are certainly implications, for instance, "changing one's past", but that is so foreign to me that I have not put much effort into it. When I see a quote where Seth says something like, "The point of power is in the past", that will become more interesting to me than dancing angels and pinheads.

I don't think we can choose sides when it comes to the Seth material. In our current existence, we can't prove much of what Seth said about anything, especially things like probable realities or changing the past, because our knowledge is limited and our experience for the most part is limited to this physical world. The same can be said for Bashar, The Law of One, The Federation of Light, and all the other channeled materials I'm not even aware of. And religion as well. Although, physicists are working on finding proof of simultaneous time and probable selves and multiverses.

I've said this probably a hundred times: The Seth materials resonate with me. Some if it doesn't, but it makes more sense to me than anything I'd read before. The things that don't sit well with me get put aside, maybe for another time. Do I believe in probable realities? I can't say I do 100%, but I'm willing to consider it. Being a born skeptic, I have a hard time believing anything until I have personal proof. Even with science. I've been around long enough to see some things that science (especially medical, don't get me started) touted as being the absolute truth, changed to a new absolute truth in the blink of an eye.   

Quote from: Deb
The same can be said for Bashar, The Law of One, The Federation of Light, and all the other channeled materials I'm not even aware of.

Deb, according to the writer David Wilcock we can take as truth only 5% of channeled material from any one source. What I infer from that is that we may need to combine material from different sources. If there is agreement between sources on certain matters, we can take note of the agreement.

Hi All,

Some people think that this is how life works. When I look out upon the world and I see and experience, my experiences, I then formulate my beliefs about the world and that is how beliefs are formed.

Other people say, no this isn't how life works. Instead, they say, first, you have and hold one or more beliefs. Then, when you look out upon the world, you see and experience certain things. Those things that you see and experience, are things that follow your beliefs.




A glass of water, filled to the halfway mark, sits upon a table.

Person A, upon seeing the glass, says, "Yea, I'm dying of thirst and here's a glass that has some water, this is going to taste soooooo gooooood", as he happily drinks the water.


A glass of water, filled to the halfway mark, sits upon a table.

Person B, upon seeing the glass, says, "Oh, Boo Hoo, I'm dying of thirst and here's a glass with some water in it, but this small amount of water is never going to quench my thirst."



What's going on here and why did they react the way that they did? Nobody said or forced, either Person A or Person B to react that way. So, why did they react that way?  They each reacted in their own unique way, because prior to experiencing this event, they held some preconceived notions, ideas or beliefs about one or more things, and these preconceived beliefs led to their specific reactions to this experience.

So, once again, does our world really formulate our beliefs or do our beliefs create our experience of the world. What's really goes on here?



One of the strongest idea's in Seth's teachings, an idea that very often gets completely overlooked with all of the other concepts that he talks about (you create your reality, probably realities, reincarnation, the soul or entity, etc.) is the idea that your "beliefs" have a major impact upon your life experience.

Basically, I'd say that Seth, in this way, supports the idea that many other people also talk about, which is often called, "The Law of Attraction". This "Law of Attraction" is an idea that is the basis of the book, "The Secret". It is also implied in other books, like, "What the "Bleep" do we Know", and in many other writings as well.  In short, it's not really just a Seth idea, because many other people have discovered this concept as well.


Basically, the law of attraction says this. "What you believe, you perceive", or stated more or less by Seth in another way, "What you focus on, you will draw to you and experience, be it good or bad."



The law of attractions says this. If you believe in the existence of evil, evil affects, or are filled with fear, or are fear based, then when you look out into the world, you will see and perhaps even experience evil and its affects.


The law of attraction also says this. If you believe and focus instead upon good things and completely take your mind and worries off of the existence of evil, evil affects, and fear, then when you look out into the world, you will see and experience good things, instead. By not focusing upon evil and its effects, you, won't be drawing it to you.


Does this mean that evil doesn't exist in the world? No. Many people for various reasons are either drawn to or focus upon evil and its effects and since this world is a mass created experience, it is created by all of us.


Here's the thing, this law of attraction, concept may be valid, regardless of whether people believe in it or not. That is, if it is valid, then the way it would show up for people is like this. If you don't believe in it, then it won't appear to be true for you, even though it is. On the other hand, if you do believe in it, then it will appear to be true for you because it is. 

In fact, it may be difficult to either prove or disprove whether or not this law of attraction is really valid. However, just because some people don't necessarily believe in it, this doesn't necessarily prevent it from being an actuality.

Here's the thing, if what Seth and many others say to us is true, if this law of attraction really is valid, and if you don't believe in it, then when you look out at the world and you see evil and evils affects, it will appear to you that what Seth and other say is not true.

And why does this appear to be true for you, because that is what you believe.

However, your lack of belief in this concept doesn't in any way "prove", that what Seth and others have said to us (this law of attraction concept is valid and operates in the world) isn't valid.


-jbseth

I have been thinking about stuff like this.  There are things out there that people absolutely 100% believe.  I hesitate to come up with a specific example for fear of inadvertently insulting someone.  As a fabricated example, let's say that there is a large group of people out there that believe that cucumbers are sentient beings and that we can hold conversations with them.  Say that there are large groups of people who believe this is true and that I find the idea to be completely ridiculous.  I know that sentient cucumbers don't exist.  It's silly.  But these people who believe this, they believe it 100%.  To them, the thought that cucumbers are not sentient is completely ridiculous.  Of course they are sentient.  How can anyone believe otherwise??

Who's right?  I know that I am, but what about the people who know that they are?

Do sentient cucumbers really exist for them?  Or do they not exist and it is just a mass delusion of some sort?

There are a lot of things in this world that groups of people are 100% convinced are true that I simply do not believe.  I'd imagine it's the same for all of us.  Their belief in the existence of something is just as strong as my belief that it doesn't exist.

It makes me wonder about how Seth talks about our shared reality but how we each create our own world and how I can't create in yours and you can't create in mine.

In this case, sentient cucumbers exist in their world, but not in mine. 

And yes, I also realize that according to Seth, everything has a form of sentience.  I wasn't going there with my example.

Quote from: Sena

Quote from: Deb
The same can be said for Bashar, The Law of One, The Federation of Light, and all the other channeled materials I'm not even aware of.

Deb, according to the writer David Wilcock we can take as truth only 5% of channeled material from any one source. What I infer from that is that we may need to combine material from different sources. If there is agreement between sources on certain matters, we can take note of the agreement.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Wow, you and I are definitely in very different places here.

Why would anyone who really believed in the teaching of say Seth, Bashar, the Law of One, the "Federation of Light" or "A Course in Miracles", for example, ever want to combine that material with any of the other channeled sources? Especially, if they really didn't particularly think that some or many of these other channeled sources had much merit?

Furthermore why would anyone necessarily believe or make an inference based upon something that David Wilcox said? What is it that makes him such a reliable source of information?

I do know quite a bit about David Wilcox. I followed some of his posts for a couple of years back in the 2008 timeframe and to be honest I don't believe in a lot of what he says. In 2019, he was pulled off of the internet. He was a supporter of "qanon".  Yes, that qanon.

The only reason that I can think of, for combining them, is if it was believed that only by doing so, would the common ideas found in all of them be brought to light. I became aware of this kind of thinking recently by reading Jane Roberts "Afterdeath Journal of William James" book. According to Williams James, in that book, this is a tactic that is often used by psychologists and he (James) seem to think that this "averaging" of information had some major drawbacks to it, in that you can miss many of the unique individual specific things that might be highly significant.

Seth really resonates with me.  Bashar, does to some degree, but the Law of One, "A Course in Miracles" and many of the other channeled messages definitely don't.

As you can probably tell from this message, you and I definitely are not on the same page here.


-jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
Seth really resonates with me.  Bashar, does to some degree, but the Law of One, "A Course in Miracles" and many of the other channeled messages definitely don't.

There are some aspects of ACIM that are similar to what Seth says.  But there are also a lot of things that Seth never mentions.  ACIM is really more like ascension in a way.  And even ascension has some aspects that resonate with with Seth says.  Not many, but there are some.  The huge pile of "it's not religious but it's definitely religious" messages in ACIM are what put me off.  I did 39 of the lessons and they definitely have some Seth like material in them, but so much of it is God this, God that, Jesus this, Jesus that.  Well, for someone who really just can't stand religion in general, it was off putting to say the very least.

It's funny but I don't really read channeled material other than Seth because by and large, I think that it's BS and I'm not sure I even believe in channeling.  I know that is counter to reading Seth, but I've always been a conflicted person.   To me, I've always equated channeling to things like crystals and chakras and things like that.

I am not trying to hijack this thread, just some random thoughts that came to mind when I read your post.