~Speaking of Seth~

Q&A with Tom Campbell in Calgary, video 3 of 3.



Tom discusses discovering the Seth books (he worked with Bob Monroe, who also consulted with Jane/Rob/Seth).

Tom explains his disagreement with the Seth premise of simultaneous time, saying it was only because of Jane's limitations that she didn't quite transcribe Seth's message correctly.

Very interesting. I'd love to have more discussions with people about linear vs. simultaneous time. 

starts @ 47:00

Larger dimensions are within the larger consciousness system, so I would say what I'm calling a reality frame, you could call that a dimension. It begs the question here, what is a dimension? In my mind, a reality frame is a dimension so it's a different virtual reality. We are multidimensional beings, that's what Seth said. Seth Speaks was the first book I read that really makes sense. I read a whole lot of books when I was first getting going with Bob Monroe back in the early 70s and I wanted to read everything I could about it. I read some Eastern philosophy and that made sense. But as far as a book that wasn't so much about philosophy as a "here's how it works" book, Seth's were the first of those that said something to me, and some of it didn't compute with me, but a lot of it did. So I have a warm feeling for Seth.

But some of the things in Seth aren't quite right, and the reason they're not quite right is not that Seth didn't quite know what he was saying, it's because in a medium relationship, the medium gets the information and has to translate that information into their own words, their own interpretations and their own concepts. And as much as that medium has a good range of concepts that can explain and has a good set of metaphors that can the explain information, you get really good data. But inasmuch you have data that the medium doesn't have a good set of metaphors or ways of putting it together to say it, you get garbled data. And very seldom is that kind of relationship perfect. You get problems with it. Seth Speaks was very good and all-in-all I give Jane Roberts high marks for Seth Speaks. But there were a few things that got confused there. Like one of the things that Seth says is that everything happens at the same time. See that's a Seth statement, that's a Jane statement really. Everything is simultaneous. There is no time really, time doesn't tick because everything is simultaneous, everything happens at once. That's just not so, that's not logical at all. What happens is you have to have time, you have to have sequence of events. If you don't have a sequence of events, you don't have a before and after. If you don't have a before and after, you can't learn anything. You cannot evolve. All you can have is static. If there is no time ticking, if we don't have now, and after now, and after, after now, nothing could ever change. See, change itself implies time. There's no change without time. And everything doesn't happen at the same time, because then you wouldn't have any learning. Learning is sequential. You learn from this, and from that you build on that learning, you extend on that learning to learn, learning is cumulative. If everything happens at the same time, then there's no such thing as learning. So, it's not that way. One of the fundamental things, fundamental technologies, that consciousness system evolved was time. And the reason it evolved time as a fundamental technology is that time gives you another whole dimension of possibility. Another whole dimension of complexity. 50:57

51:36 But, I know exactly what Seth was trying to say. And what he intended to say but Jane didn't quite get it. And that is, that you have this probable future database, you have the present, you have the historical data base, both actualized and unactualized, and all of that exists at the same time. So you have the past, you have the present, you have the future, and it's all there. And you can go there any time you want. You can go to the past, you can go to the future, all this data across time in the database is available to you. And I think Seth was working down that line, and I think Jane got it that there's no time, everything is right now, past, present and future. Well in a way it is, if you're talking about the databases, everything is here right now, past, present and future, but that's not the big picture. That's just the picture around this virtual reality. It's the past, present and future of this virtual reality. But you see this virtual reality is just one drop in the bucket. There's other virtual realities, other places. So I think it was just a misunderstanding. 52:49 [goes on to talk about us being multidimensional beings]

Bashar and others confirm no linear time. Bashar often makes fun of our reality where we experience liner time. He explains this as a side effect of creating your own universe continually. The difference between one and the next one is small and these small differences add up to a sequential view of time.

The difference can be big if we have the imagination and excitement.

Sid

I think it's a matter of perception on Campbell's part. He does say he knows what Seth was trying to get at. What Campbell says about linear times makes perfect sense. I think what Seth is getting at is the data base of all that has happened or could have happened or ever will happen or ever could happen. That is all there. But the progression of time logically has to be linear, for reasons explained in this video.

Quote from: Jackaranda on November 22, 2015, 08:39:23 PMWhat Campbell says about linear times makes perfect sense.

I have to agree with you, he really brings up some valid points. One of the things I really love about this guy is that he's confident in what he says, but doesn't appear arrogant about it. He's spent probably his whole life thinking about the meaning of everything, has assimilated all of his thoughts into a comprehensive theory of everything (well, he did write the book(s)) and really seems to know what he's talking about. At least from the perspective that he knows what he believes. Later in the video he talks with someone about using the word god, why he does't go there, and it was all said very matter-of-fact with, again, no arrogance. Just logic, common sense. He seems to be very comfortable in his own skin, so to say. Really Jack, thanks for giving me the heads up on Tom.

Well he's been there. A lot. He said in one lecture that he's been to probably two dozen different "reality frames." This planet, this universe, is one reality frame. He has been able to have OBE's at will since he was a kid. And he's not telling tales here either, he's totally legit. What he says in his lectures is probably just a fraction of what he has learned and has been shown over the years.

One very interesting thing he says is when this life is over it fades away like a dream. We do study our lives and then decide what to work on next. We can choose to come back here or, in some cases, to go elsewhere. I don't recall TC saying anything about being able to go back to a point in the life we just had and having an opportunity to make a different decision/decisions that could change the outcome of our lives. Seth talks about that and I find it to be a very interesting possibility.

All in all Tom Campbell and Seth are very much in sync in what they teach. A few details may be different but I think they're both very credible.

Quote from: Jackaranda on November 22, 2015, 11:05:59 PM
Well he's been there. A lot. He said in one lecture that he's been to probably two dozen different "reality frames." This planet, this universe, is one reality frame. He has been able to have OBE's at will since he was a kid. And he's not telling tales here either, he's totally legit. What he says in his lectures is probably just a fraction of what he has learned and has been shown over the years.

One very interesting thing he says is when this life is over it fades away like a dream. We do study our lives and then decide what to work on next. We can choose to come back here or, in some cases, to go elsewhere. I don't recall TC saying anything about being able to go back to a point in the life we just had and having an opportunity to make a different decision/decisions that could change the outcome of our lives. Seth talks about that and I find it to be a very interesting possibility.

All in all Tom Campbell and Seth are very much in sync in what they teach. A few details may be different but I think they're both very credible.

Do Tom's books cover any material not already covered in Seth books? I am interested to read his work, but I don't like to waste time getting into a book only to find out it's really basic "ABC" stuff when I've moved on to other things.

I'll watch that video later, but having read the text I fail to understand the point.
What misunderstanding?
I never felt a sense of misunderstanding about the idea (and personal subjective experience) of simultaneous time.

I remember last year when I went to a hypno-therapist who specialised in past life recall. Those experiences felt then like they were happening "now" rather than in the past, and also I can not only recall those experiences from that session (which was a couple of hours) but also bring that state/feeling to mind and explore more of those lives without having to go into an altered state or anything, I can recall and explore more aspects of those selves here and now.

So yeah maybe Thomas had a misunderstanding, but I don't think that makes it true for everyone else.


The part about life being like a dream is pretty much what Buddhists have been saying for thousands of years.


Anyhow, the part Seth goes on about / the whole life review thing in the after death state - what Buddhism refers to as the Bardo(s) I remember Seth saying that you could explore parts of that life you just lived, eplore choices not made etc, re-experience any part of that life to see what you can learn from it, what you might have done differently etc. But (and my memory may not be accurate here) you are basically having a virtual experience of that life, you are not changing it, so much as examining and re-experiencing any part of it you like, and any different choices, feelings etc you experience are for your learning now, because where does learning / evolution etc take place? In consciousness from my view.


Of course I may have misread - remembered what Seth said. There are other parts of the Seth material where he will say something the opposite of what he said earlier. The thing is not to be too rigid about anything in my view. I think there were parts where he said if you don't like some experience earlier in your life, then recall it and change it.


I don't know how literally you are changing the event (the descriptions differ in the material), but your feelings about the event change, and if you can imagine something you like better, then go ahead and do it, because it is YOU here and now that has to live with whatever nonsense ideas you were subjected when you were younger, so if you don't like them, then change them and grow something better in your garden (mind).


This part also brings to mind the idea of multiple universes and selves. Even if I/you change something. There is still a universe where that self did not make that change. That simultaneous self exists, as do you and I, and each different choice creates a different version of us and a whole new timeline / event.



In visual terms I think of a flower of a tree with hundreds of seeds dropping and floating away on the wind.
The flower / tree is the over-self, the seeds the various simultaneous versions of you in parallel timelines
Now imagine a billion of those tree/ selves and magnify it a billion times more. That to me gets somewhere closer to the idea / experience of an over-self and all its tentacles stretching through multiple dimensions, timelines, simultaneous selves, past and future lives, and all the parallels and offshoots of those past/future lives, their counterparts, probable selves etc.


PHEW! Sounds like a lot of work keeping track of all that at once. If someone hired me to be an over-self I'd quit on day one and go lay down on the beach instead.

Time is a mystery.....to say the least. As for logic, that, too, can lead one to question much of what we consider true. Regardless of reputation, I feel, from reading the text, that TC is trying explain non-temporal ideas within, and with, temporal means. I see a similar problem with science. Trying to uncover multi-dimensional secrets using three dimensional tools.


It makes perfect sense to consider linear time while you exist in linear time, and when all your know is linear time, but it strikes me as egotistical, and quite arrogant, to state that he knows 'exactly' what Seth was trying to say, but Jane didn't get it. How many times didn't Jane 'get it'? Through all the years and sessions Seth continually mentioned time being simultaneous. So every time that message came through it was 'garbled'?


It also amazes me how 'small' many believe All That Is, is. So this guys been to two dozen reality frames. So what? What number of possible existences and creative dimensions do exist? As I type this, the words 'number' and 'small' lose any real impact as its back to linear thinkimg which is defined by my belief system within this physical life. Even 'logic' has been created. Who is to say there aren't different kinds of logic in different realities?


Then the idea of future and past 'data'. The probable self/selves. This takes away, for me, the point of power being the present. It seems llogical, but t when I reach my future time period, then what I'm doing right now is just past data? Then everything is just some kind of 'data'. And what about the 'data' that I chose not experience? The feeling of databases also leaves me cold. Where's the creativity? If all the pages ahead of us are already written, then what's the point? Just to get there for the experience? Surely the creative energies within the universe are passing through us too, so we don't just read the pages, but write them too.


Then to say Jane summed up 'simultaneous time' as meaning 'no time' I find illogical too. From a greater standpoint, if time is simultaneous, happening at once, then really there is 'no time', because by our definition time is sequential. If it's not occurring sequentially then calling it 'no time', 'banana time' or 'hammer time' is a question of semantics. The fact TC hasn't experienced simultaneous time tells me that he just hasn't reached that level of consciousness.


We do 'experience' linear time. As we obviously have to. But we are in spiritual kindergarten. And many more of us haven't even entered that level of education. Regardless of how many OBE's one has experienced, the current ego self is still limited by the current belief systems, whether it's in the physical or astral. By the end of the text he states 'in a way' all past, present and future databases do exist n the now. Which is it? It's obviously both, depending on your viewpoint.


To find Jane's take on things, take a break from Seth and read Jane's work. I just finished re-reading The Oversoul Seven Trilogy. Brilliant, in my opinion. As good as any of the Seth material, highly creative, and a feeling that she wrestled with all the concepts that came through her as much as we do today.


LK

Quote from: John Sorensen on January 09, 2016, 06:58:23 PMDo Tom's books cover any material not already covered in Seth books? I am interested to read his work, but I don't like to waste time getting into a book only to find out it's really basic "ABC" stuff when I've moved on to other things.

I bought the trilogy a couple of months ago, but haven't had much time to read lately. I've gotten about 1/4" into it (it's 2" thick) and have been enjoying it so far. For a rocket scientist, he does have a good writing style for this novice although I'm sure some of it will fly right over my head. My interest in the books is because I'm so excited that scientists (and even some doctors) have been validating recently what Seth said 40 years ago.

Reading this book is a real commitment and I'm not sure how far I'll get. I haven't been able to read any Seth books lately either; that's my priority but I've been known to have several books going at any given time. But I couldn't say whether TC's stuff is what you'd consider the basic ABC stuff, he's really out there.

Quote from: John Sorensen on January 09, 2016, 06:58:23 PMI think there were parts where he said if you don't like some experience earlier in your life, then recall it and change it.

Yes, I remember that. But how would we ever know if we changed something in our past? I have a feeling the recall of the event would be changed as well. Probable selves, multiple planes/universes... Seth had a really nice explanation about this in one of the books, I think maybe the first of the personal sessions, when he was explaining to Rob his mother's probable selves and their different experiences, Rob's probable selves in childhood (he died in one of them) and an very interesting comment that when one of his mother's probable selves died—some of her energy (I think) was somehow transferred to another self.

Quote from: LenKop on January 10, 2016, 08:57:29 AMTrying to uncover multi-dimensional secrets using three dimensional tools.

Yep, I seem to recall Seth talking about our limitations for understanding. Makes perfect sense to me. Like trying to explain colors to someone who has been blind since birth. Oversimplified, I know.

And the data TC talks about turned me off, it just makes everything seem so sterile and cold to think we're nothing more than part of a program. Reminds me not so much of the Matrix, but of The Sims. They appear to have free will to affect their own outcomes, but of course being a computer game the free will is only a random program process.

And linear time vs simultaneous time? I'm still on the fence over that one. Again, not enough information for me, I only know what I've experienced. In a way I only see time as a measuring tool, born out of convenience. Like feet and meters. Then I think, if all is one and existing in the same space, but we are only aware of our own existence at the moment, then maybe time is not so different from space. I think I just confused myself, I'd better stop here.

Yes, The Oversoul books were a great way to explain the concepts. I enjoyed the first book the most. Maybe I'll pull that out again.

Nothing to add here right now, just wanted to say thanks Lenkop and Deb for sharing your ideas.

Tom Campbell in Calagary

Tom was saying early on in the presentation that we cannot go back to a previous life in the 1800s as an example. He describes that life, from the 1800s, as history, one of his favourite terms as well as describing the 1800 life as DATA, again another one of his favourite words. My understanding of the Seth Material (not just the book by that name) but the ensemble of Jane Roberts Books, that the 1800s life is just as valid as the current one. The very important difference between the two is that the current life is the one we focus on and is described as the Moment of Power by Seth. This does not invalidate the other lives, not only the one from the 1800s, but also the potential thousands of other lives we would have as a creative entity. This is further supported by Seth when he says that actions we take in the focus life have an impact on other lives. This suggests to me that our lives are not reincarnational but simultaneous one, rendering time as irrelevant. In that context it seems to me foolish to suggest that lives other than the focus one are simple data and that they have no further relevance.

A question was asked regarding Rosie McKnight who was an explorer at TMI regarding the event when Rosie was unable to attend her regular session at the Monroe Institute. It is said that another person used her CHEC unit to sleep in and was apparently pulled out of her body by helpers. Tom remarks that this may well have been an event within the probability realm. His comment on the event is far fetched in my view. Sadly, I have only one OOBE and at a very young age and do not know anything more about it than that one single event while Tom has had numerous ones. But to suggest that the event that the person had was because the so-called helpers were confused and further that there had been an expectation, from a probability point of view, that Rosie would have been there at the prescribed time and location and the helpers came around and did their thing on somebody else is extremely foolish. I do not believe for a second that was the case. I would suggest the helpers were there for the person that experience them, and has nothing to do with Rosie's previous experiences as Tom also remarked as a possible explanation.

Tom replies to a question about an example of a past life regression wherein you were about to choke someone but in the current reality (the one you actualized) you do not choke the person. In the other option you did choke the person, but it was only a probability and not actualized. To my understanding of the Seth Material all the probabilities and possibilities are actualized, not in the Present Moment, but as equally valid in other realities. These are not probabilities but actual realities contrary to what Tom is claiming.

It was quite interesting to hear Tom provide comments about Seth Speaks. That was very enjoyable given my interest in the Seth books and Jane's work. I suggest that Tom is wrong when he says that time is required for change to occur. One of the basic criteria of reality in Seth's presentation or talks is that there is no time, there is simultaneous existence or simultaneous time, hence no past present or future.

Tom is saying that learning is sequential, all attributes of earth learning in an earth time, this universe has time. Other universes do not have time, thus learning is not sequential. Learning is simultaneous, and is done by virtue of the unlimited probabilities and possibilities of a multiverse reality where all probabilities and possibilities are actualized.

As any good physicist and thinker would, he comes up with arguments to support his claim that time is required for learning. He says that without time there is no beginning and end, thus no progression and no learning. That, is the earthly rule set here. Tom claim Seth's intention was to say that:

"But, I know exactly what Seth was trying to say. And what he intended to say but I think Jane didn't quite get it. And that is that you have this probable future data base, you have the present, you have the historical data base, both actualized and non actualized, and all of that exists at the same time. So you have the past, you have the present, you have the future, and it's all there. And you can go there anytime you want. You can go to the past. You can go to the future. All this data across all time in the data base is available to you. And I think Seth was working down that line. And I think Jane got it {as, my insertion} "there is no time, everything is right now: past, present and future. Well in a way it is, if you're talking about the databases, everything is here right now, past, present and future, but that's not the big picture. That's just the picture around this virtual reality. It's the past, present and future of this virtual reality. But you see this virtual reality is just one drop in the bucket. There's other virtual realities, other places. So I think it was just a misunderstanding."

However time does not apply anywhere else.  Sadly we cannot respond adequately to his claim since we are "stuck" in this reality. Contrary to what Tom claims, that the data bases are just that, data, I suggest they are all simultaneously actualized, and not simple data stored in a box.

Still I do believe Seth is right and Tom is not secure enough to leave his time concept, as the physics theories will fall apart. It would be interesting to get opinions from people who have done extensive OOBE. Tom has done a lot of OOBE, at least he says so, and he offers no support of the time issue for that experience.

Let us not forget that the channelling sessions by Jane continued nearly up to the time of her death in 1984. The book "Seth Speaks" was published in 1970 and thus there was nearly 14 years of "time" for Seth to correct any "translation" errors by Jane in the intervening years. To my knowledge no corrections were ever made. Thus Tom's claim that Jane made errors, is a valid point, but there is no evidence of that in terms of the Seth material itself. Let him show the data if he has any regarding corrections. He is saying that Jane had insufficient "metaphors" to correctly translate the information, I beg to differ.

As a final remark on this point, Seth says in one of his books that the connection between himself and Jane was particularly significant and important in trying to assure that the information given by Seth and channelled by Jane had the greatest fidelity possible given our circumstances. In addition, Seth indicated that Jane, Robert Butts and himself had all cooperated in other avenues, thus lending support to the "high fidelity", in my view, of the Seth Material.

Seth had mentioned the importance of this to him and that for the same reason he would not communicate in a similar way through anyone else as Seth. Of course, that does not imply that he has not communicated further, he surely has, as his primary role is as a teacher and communicator. Seth, Jane, and her husband Robert all knew before arriving on earth that this was a probability and they did everything they could to get things right.

One of the things that troubles me is Tom's claim that the larger consciousness has all the data, all of the possibilities and essentially all of the knowing and knowledge. That is particularly disturbing in my view because that implies the impossibility of creativity. The essential and root premise of Seth is that we "Create our own reality", thus unlimited creativity, in addition to having free will. We are not simple players in a virtual reality.

The issue of reducing entropy. I do not know why Tom keeps harping on this issue. In the Seth concept of reality, energy is an endless supply never to be drained. It is continuously being generated. How that is I do not know. But I believe that is what Seth is saying.

Quote from: Yeoshi YamamotoOne of the things that troubles me is Tom's claim that the larger consciousness has all the data, all of the possibilities and essentially all of the knowing and knowledge. That is particularly disturbing in my view because that implies the impossibility of creativity. The essential and root premise of Seth is that we "Create our own reality", thus unlimited creativity, in addition to having free will. We are not simple players in a virtual reality.

The issue of reducing entropy. I do not know why Tom keeps harping on this issue. In the Seth concept of reality, energy is an endless supply never to be drained. It is continuously being generated. How that is I do not know. But I believe that is what Seth is saying.

Yeoshi, welcome to the forum. I agree with your reading of Seth that there is an endless supply of energy. The Big Bang theory is definitely out. Do you think it is really worth reading Tom Campbell?

  I would say yes. One of the objectives of our being here, though I sure do not profess to be a savant, learned individual, nor philosopher, I am your ordinary guy trying to figure out some of the seemingly horribly stupid things we do to each other and know why in hell we would ever create such a reality! Given that, our objective, in part, then is to learn as much as we can about what surrounds us internally and externally.

I found Tom Campbell's videos very interesting. He says that he has had 50 to 60 OBEs at TMI and that he has visited different realities or data streams if you will to use his jargon. He is complimentary of Jane's work which was very nice to hear. After viewing several videos, and some are pretty lengthy, I have not heard him refer to the words "you create your own reality". If he does believe in that premise, he certainly does not say it.

All I can say regarding Tom is intuitive and in some way instinctive based on my reading and understanding of the Seth Books and Jane's own personal work.  Tom is, to be polite, in my view STUCK in his virtual reality model or his big TOE as he calls it. A virtual reality we are not. There appears to be some resemblance to virtual reality modelling but as sentient beings I do not go for it.

One of the things our current level of medicine, science, philosophy and many others take a fancy to is to divide and conquer. For instance, the beings we are, we are told, are made up of the ego, the alter ego, the consciousness, the unconsciousness, and on and on it goes.

Seth is pretty clear on this, there are no divisions to the self. It is particularly frustrating to me, that he continually uses those same appellations in his books because we would not understand very well what he is taking about it otherwise, and I agree with him. But it does create great confusion for me while he says there are no divisions, he speaks in terms of separations of the self all along his work. I suppose that is one hurdle we have to deal with.

Tom is a brilliant man and very knowledgeable. He is not as closed minded as many others in his field. But yesterday while I was viewing a talk by Dean Radin it occurred to me that much of Physics claims are a virtual reality in its own right. Are they really painting the truth of our universe or is it all pretend, couched behind mathematics. Their latest toy is virtual reality brought to you by Microsoft, Apple, Atari and so many thousands of others.

It was quite interesting to look at their explanation of the double slit experiment and its many variants. Dean does not say the same thing as Tom on the experiment. Tom is claiming that consciousness, ours, plays a role in the results that we observe and that observation plays well in my view with the concept that we "create our own reality." Dean just says that the particles, as they go through the slit behave as waves because we see a light and shadow pattern on the detector. Tom says this is a simple probability distribution. Not being a physicist I cannot go further than that.

Tom presents the concept of the super conscious that surrounds us, and we as little consciousnesses are here to reduce our entropy. I do not understand clearly what entropy is but it seems to be talking about heat dissipation, or the amount of heat in the model, or energy perhaps. Given that, they are all wrong because what Seth says in this writings regarding energy, that it is continually being created and is totally in-exhaustable, reducing your entropy cannot be a goal of consciousness. On the contrary, creating your reality demands endless energy.

One other point I would like to raise in closing, if you don't mind. Tom presents the case of "miraculous" cures in medicine. He is suggesting that this is due to the law of probability. Thus you may actualize a part of a historical data base, in his model, to occasionally heal yourself. Again here, Seth maintains that we create our own reality and that we can heal ourselves at will but it takes practice, changing our beliefs (personal and shared). It is of course much more complicated but the idea is there, we control our lives, we decide which paths we take to focus on, the moment point, and all the other paths are also taken, but are not in current focus. This has always rung a bell in me suggesting that if the other lives are existent, and if they really are us, unfocused, changing our focus should get us back to one of those lives, future or past. Of course remember time is a null. If there is no time, then physics is lost and only valid in this particular reality. I do no recollect Seth talking about time anywhere else but on earth and this current universe.

In conclusion, yes Tom is worth viewing and reading. As always take what suits you and leave the rest. There is much good content in his talks or videos, and I much enjoyed them. But as I suggested earlier, he is stuck in his virtual reality model and that paints all the rest of his work, thus he painted himself into a corner. Just my view.

Quote from: Yeoshi YamamotoTom presents the case of "miraculous" cures in medicine. He is suggesting that this is due to the law of probability. Thus you may actualize a part of a historical data base, in his model, to occasionally heal yourself. Again here, Seth maintains that we create our own reality and that we can heal ourselves at will but it takes practice, changing our beliefs (personal and shared). It is of course much more complicated but the idea is there, we control our lives, we decide which paths we take to focus on, the moment point, and all the other paths are also taken, but are not in current focus.

I am not sure whether I understand "the law of probability". Is there such a law? Does he mean probable realities? Suppose I develop some symptoms which COULD be an indication of a serious disease. If I am in a positive frame of mind, if I think that life is worth living, if I have read and understood the Seth teachings, then I don't pay too much attention to the symptoms, and they gradually fade away. If on the other hand I am in a negative frame of mind, if I am in a state of fear, if I am working too hard to earn more and more money, or if I have false religious beliefs which emphasize my sinfulness or "bad karma", then the symptoms may become a full-blown disease. In Sethian terms, I have CHOSEN to become ill. Once that stage is reached, reversing the disease could be very difficult. In other words, I can create a reality in which I am in good health, but once I have chosen to become ill it may not be easy to change that. Related to this is the question of deciding when to die. I think Seth said something like everybody chooses the time of their own death.

In practical terms, as I am 67 years old, I have the option of getting myself tested  for prostate-specific antigen. I have chosen not to get myself tested. There is some scientific evidence to suggest that if the test comes back positive, that can have a bad psychological effect.

http://www.harvardprostateknowledge.org/psa-old-controversies-new-results

https://consumer.healthday.com/cancer-information-5/mis-cancer-news-102/prostate-cancer-testing-drops-off-after-controversial-guidelines-699497.html

My use of "law of probability" is perhaps the wrong way to put it. I meant that in an example where you drop 10,000 ping pong balls into a chute and that below the chute are pegs that allow the balls to go down one aisle or another, probability states that the balls will eventually be spread in a bell shape. The centre of the aisles will have the most balls, and the ones on each successive side will have less balls, thus the bell shape.

Radin in one of his videos was saying that if you ask people to mentally try and mentally "push" the balls to one side or the other, he says that, during the experiment, though you cannot see the balls being pushed, after repeating the experiment many, many times, you observe that given statistical analysis of the distribution of the balls, i.e. the bell shape, you will see more balls on one side or the other depending on the directions given to the viewers during the experiment. Based on that result, Radin, says that conscious intent thus influences reality, in this example the distribution of the balls in the apparatus.

I do not recollect if Tom Campbell talks about probable realities. He does say that there are numerous realities where he has travelled in his out of body experiments as an explorer at The Monroe Institute.

From my perspective of the Seth material probable realities do not exits. You either have a reality somewhere out there or you do not. Frankly, I do not know if universes or other realities can be probable. When I hear the word probable reality, it means to me, that there is a reference scale or measurement that by which you can measure the likelihood of such and such a reality may appear. I know I am going way beyond my comprehension here, but given the premise of "you create your own reality", it is not a question of probability, you either create a new reality or you do not. There is no in-between, thus no probability.

Sicknesses in general are internal matters to each person. You may wish to have a sickness to help you learn about something you had not considered or to force yourself to face issues not addressed. In the animal kingdom, as an example, sickness can be used as a positive tool to control population levels. I will go further and suggest to you that the animal kingdom can be beneficial to us in causing us to learn things otherwise not possible. For instance, my view of the so-called flue epidemic, though it is questionable if it really is one as corporate financial interests (the drug companies) will bring on-stream all of their marketing gurus to pursuade us it is.

Consider the horrific conditions under which we raise chickens, pigs, birds, cattle, and numerous other species.  In my view, there is an understanding between our human species and all the others, for the time being, that we live cooperatively and share resources, etc.

When we disrespect other species, abuse them, starve them, force them into what we would call slavery in human terms, i.e. very small cages, very high level populations as in chickens, electrocute them, beat them, etc. we should expect a reaction. To correct some situations the animal species themselves will create sicknesses, and other conditions, in an attempt at correcting vile conditions imposed by "man". If we do not "honour" nor "respect" other species, then we disrespect and dishonour ourselves in the process.

Seth has presented very good material on sickness, creating our own reality, and helping ourselves be "better" persons. There are plenty of exercises offered in the books.

Seth does say that our body has sicknesses all the time, that we never even become aware of. The "natural" order of the body sees to it that those sicknesses are cured. There are other factors impacting on sickness, such as our need to learn, to experiment, to create.

Take the example of Steve Hawkins. He was not always a paraplegic as we see him today. He was once a "normal" human being. He bought into the sickness and accepted it. He could have chosen otherwise and healed himself. But we must respect his choices and his design for his reality. Perhaps he was aware of his potential for self-healing but chose to not do so. The reasons may be as multitudinous as their are beings in the world.

There are all kinds of healers, cures, faith healers, reiki users, and untold others. Those are all external healing mechanisms. If you buy into them, you may be healed, but it is not the external force or claim that heals you, it is in fact yourself, and more importantly your belief in the healing potential of that practitioner.

Scientific experiments have clearly demonstrated that healings can occur from a simple placebo, a sugar or cellulose pill, with no healing effects whatsoever, yet people whom are told that they are taking a magic pill to heal such and such a disease miraculously heal themselves. Their own consciousness caused the healing to occur because their belief and their intent behind the belief corrected the issue(s) in the body. This is consistent with the premise that we create our own reality.

Sadly, healing oneself is not as simple as I just painted it. There are all kinds of factors at play and Seth does go into some of these things in his books.

As you say you are a sinner, then you will pay for your sins somehow, that is the credo of the religion you have adopted, if I am not mistaken. It is not necessary for you to adopt such a belief. If it comforts you and you are comfortable with it, then you will have to live with the consequences.

One of the key things that Seth mentions is the belief that you hold about yourself and the energy or intent that you put behind your belief. If as in the example of the ping pong balls, nobody pushes the balls, they fall within the probability distribution curve that you expect to get. If your intent is then to move them, then things change. So intent is very important.

Seth also says that it is very useful if you backup your intent with action. For instance, I have lost a great deal of my muscle mass for a variety of reasons. Now I may have all the intent in the world to gain my muscles back and build them up, but if I do not support that by actual physical activity targeting muscle building, it is likely that I will be unsuccessful in building my muscles up by sitting in front of a computer all day. This is in part what I mean by saying healing is complicated and I certainly cannot talk for Seth on the issue as he did a really good job on that subject. We have to help our body and our situation by concrete actions as well as intent and belief. Those three things combined are important. Believing you are a sinner is an artificial block that you put in the way.

You mention being in a positive frame of mind or negative frame of mind and a little further false religious beliefs. Believing that you are a sinner is very dangerous as it skews all of your life in that context and your experiences of life may follow that primary belief.

We are not sinners, it is religious organizations that have taken that credo to heart and have used it for thousands of years to manipulate the masses and people into following their "views" and "beliefs" about life while at the same time building huge empires, and immense wealth for a select few of them. Also the religions in general have given themselves the "right" to murder, decapitate, sexually abuse "non believers" and pagan worshippers, throughout the entire world. Their best marketing technique has been hell and heaven.

The vast indigenous populations of the world have been decimated, tortured, killed, and destroyed at the whim of the religions. The real reason was to acquire their counties, their lands, their resources, etc. The religious belief of "faith" if you will was a ruse and it still is to this day.

If you believe in a god, make sure it really is your own belief and not one you adopted from somebody else that  convinced you of being a sinful person, and that some courageous fellow by the name of christ died on a cross to save you. Total nonsense. You are not a sinner and you never have been. This is a ruse to enslave you.

Read again those parts of Seth discussing the christ event, the three christs, religion and so on. It is quite revealing and interesting.

I agree with you that events, sicknesses and everything else are choices we make as we travel on this earth path. They are not predetermined and fatalistic.

In my view we decide, before being created on this earth, who our parents will be, the environment we wish to live in, the continent, etc. Other than being here to learn to manipulate reality and existence so that we may progress further in our growth there is likely a great number of things you will have considered such as experiments of life, issues you may wish to focus on, endless probabilities that may or may not be actualized, to use Tom's word. However, all along the way of your travels you decide consciously or otherwise what path to take, thus you have free will. You, yourself have setup the experiment, but once arrived her on earth, you can change things as you please, within the confines of the rule book of this reality.

One important concept that Seth has presented is that when you travel to other realities, such as what Seth does himself, you must take on their "camouflage" or their rules of the game there to be understood. The rules of the game here do not apply to other realities. So, Seth has done just that when he was visiting Jane during their regular sessions.

In terms of health for instance, Seth says that if you are born without a leg however, you cannot create a new one for yourself because the rule of the game for us is that is not possible. So there are limits and constraints in the belief of "you create your own reality". You create your own reality within a structure that governs the reality you are in. Can that change? I believe it can but do not ask me how it can change!

In regard to the testing for cancer of the testicles and such, it is of course a personal decision. It seems that as a society we have become quite dependent on the medical establishment and its unending barrage of: "you are sick. If not today, you will be sick tomorrow. YOU must visit you doctor to "find out", or take this drug today, and on and on goes the marketing ploy. I applaud your personal decision to counter their insane brainwashing by not getting the test done. I keep away from doctors as much as possible.

In regard to death, we have become slaves to the state that has taken our dignity and rights away. Everyone, regardless of age or condition has the right to terminate their life as they see fit. Remember, the earth is a kindergarten school and we are far from graduating to grade 1. Who knows, we may have to press the reset button as in Tom's scenario and start all over. It really is no big deal as our existence, in physical terms, is just one part of what we are as entities. We live, and die and with total certainty we learn all along the way.

As to our personal and individual death, again it is not predetermined nor fatalistic. You, and only you decide when that even will occur, though consciously you will not be aware of that, usually. Consider reading again "The Way Toward Health", published in 1997 by Robert Butts, a Seth book

Funny, I too, am 67 years old!

In general I hate doctors, they are incompetent for the most part, are secure in their garb, drugs and machines, and we are just bodies to examine and manipulate. I take a dim view of medicine and the medical establishment as a whole to be sure, but I too have my issues with the medical establishment. There is no money in telling people that they can heal themselves, but that is precisely what must happen.

In closing, I have embarked on a physical training program for myself. On a scale of 0 to 10 on my physical condition, I would give myself a -2 if not -3 so I have a big job ahead of myself. But I have taken the fist step, and am attending, daily, a gym, within a kilometre of my residence. So I am literally taking baby steps in my exercises, the minimum weights on the machines, such as the stationary bicycle and rowing machine, are too much for me, unbelievable. I will be slow for quite a while, but I have started and putting action behind my intent to get physically fit. Hooray for me.

One piece of advice I can offer you, and one I have taken from the Seth books is the following: when you get a thought that you find suspect, or not benign, thank it for its kind offer but allow it to continue on its way elsewhere. Do not focus on it and just, perhaps, being surprised by the thought, send it on its way. If you focus on it you may give it the necessary impetus and energy it requires to become part of your reality. It odes not mean being scared of thoughts you get, some you may wish to act on and reinforce, such as seeing a good friend. Another example is the yearly flue shot garbage pawned on us every year by doctors, governments and everybody else it seems; just ignore it, you are not sick, you are in good health, and you decline their offer to get sick.

Seth notes in one of this books that the unending barrage of commercials telling us about new sicknesses and existing ones brainwashes us into thinking that we are at the mercy of illnesses. That could not be further from the truth. The body left to its own reality is more than capable of avoiding and fixing any issues that comes its way. We need to honour and respect our bodies as much as possible to help it maintain our health in good standing. Personal beliefs have a great deal to do with that status.

I have not examined your two references yet, but will do so soon.

Hi Yeoshi, welcome to the forum! And a happy new year to you.

Quote from: TC51:36 But, I know exactly what Seth was trying to say.

How many times I've heard this from people! Seth seemed so clear on a lot of things, I'm wondering now if Campbell had read much beyond Seth Speaks. It's been a long time since I watched the entire video (above), so don't recall if he mentioned that. Seth tended to touch on topics repeatedly through the books, reiterating and expanding the information given. Simultaneous time is a very big and difficult concept to understand, at least for me. My Framework amnesia is fully functional.

Tom's statements supporting linear time, I'm thinking, are because that is engrained in this system he is/we are in right now. Another one of those game rules.

Quote from: Yeoshi YamamotoThe issue of reducing entropy. I do not know why Tom keeps harping on this issue.

I don't understand that either, other than while he really appreciated Seth's teachings, he's questioning everything because he's a thinker, because of his background and eduction, because he has beliefs that he's collected over his lifetime. He does appear stuck in his own beliefs, although he seems the type to question hopefully even himself over 'time.' There are many scientists that are supporting the concept of The Field, the vast sea of energy. Heck, even Tesla did.

Quote from: Yeoshi YamamotoSeth notes in one of this books that the unending barrage of commercials telling us about new sicknesses and existing ones brainwashes us into thinking that we are at the mercy of illnesses. That could not be further from the truth.

Amen to that! It's a shame how our society has been brainwashed into thinking we cannot get well without the assistance of a doctor, or Big Pharma, hospitals... When I read Seth's comment about how diseases come and go in our bodies (for instance, cancer) and most of the time we don't even realize it, I thought wow, if we're caught in that period of cancer by, say, having a routine physical or lab work, the illness becomes frozen in time, a person now becomes a victim of cancer. With the caveat that it will forever be looming over our heads, even after successful treatment. Branded.

Quote from: SenaDo you think it is really worth reading Tom Campbell?

I still haven't read the My Big Toe Trilogy yet, it's overwhelming to me. Tom may be a Seth fan, but he's not pure Seth so maybe good with respect to being exposed to his perspective and theories.

I wish there was a way for me to put a library up on the forum. We all have some many great books we'd like to share, but most of mine are in print. And then there are those pesky copyright laws...  At least on Amazon you can read a few pages of most books before committing to buying them. A lot of the books we read here can't be found in public libraries.

A quote from "The Nature of Personal Reality", page 98, though the page number may not match a different publisher or  book format.

... "A man believing he has heart trouble will finally, through his own anxiety, affect the functioning of his "involuntary" system until his heart is definitely harmed if the belief goes unchecked. The conscious mind directs the so-called involuntary systems of the body, and not the other way around. No idea slips insidiously past your awareness to affect your involuntary system unless it fits in with your own conscious beliefs. Once more, you will not be sick if you think you are well — but there may be other ideas that make you believe in the necessity for poor health."

... "Within the basic framework of the body chosen before physical birth for reasons that will be discussed later), the individual has full freedom to create a perfectly healthy functioning form. The form is, however, a mirror of beliefs, and will accurately materialize in flesh those ideas held by the conscious mind."

... "That is one of the body's primary functions. A sick body is performing that function then, in its way, as well as a healthy one. It is your most intimate feedback system, changing with your thought and experience, giving you in flesh the physical counterpart of your thought. So it is futile to become angry at a symptom, or to deride the body for its condition when it is presenting you with the corporeal replica of your own thought, as it was meant to do.

... from page 142 - "If you shed the distorted concepts of unnatural guilt and accepted the wise ancient wisdom of natural guilt instead, there would be no wars. You would not kill each other mindlessly. You would understand the living integrity of each organ in your body and have no need to attack any of them.

This obviously does not mean that the time of the body's death would not come. It does mean that the seasons of the body would be understood as following those of the mind, ever-changing and flowing, with conditions coming and going but always maintaining the splendid unity within the body's form. You would not have chronic illnesses. Generally speaking, and ideally, the body would wear our gradually while still showing far greater endurance than it does now.

I see Seth talking about data often in his books, and it is quite conceivable to me that Tom interpreted the information in his terms. After all, his profession is physics. So, depending on the type of baggage you bring to the table, you will interpret the contents of the Seth material in that context. This not meant as a negative criticism of Tom's work, as clearly a huge effort and great experience leads Tom.

I do not claim to have heard everything Tom has said, as that would be an Herulenian task, but to date I have not heard him mentioned of the other books by Seth and Jane. Linear time is a fact in our physical reality. My interpretation of the Seth material is that such a reality exists only here and nowhere else. Thus there is no linear time in dreams, and other realities and other universes. As for linear time in OBE, I just do not know, though the OBE is tied to our physical body. On death, of course, time disappears totally.

Reading the Seth material is not like reading any other book. The words, expressions, and logic in them is quite dense, and it requires multiple readings to gather as much information from it as we can. Jane's 22 books are a mountain full. To try and understand it all is nearly impossible, as Seth often speaks about his perspective on our system. So we must go back and read over and over the books. Not easy to do in our busy lives.

My gut feeling about Tom is that is very sincere, and honest in his work. I also agree with you that he is more than capable of introspection as new ideas come to him, or new discoveries or paradigms are presented.

Perhaps I should write to him and inform him of "My  Little TOE."  Sadly my little toe was amputated and I am now forever doomed by a theory of nothing. (LOL) Just having a bit of fun.

The bloody US government apparently confiscated all of Tesla's original work, or so I read, true or untrue, how the hell would we ever know. But his claim to an endless supply of electricity or energy would make multiple corporations cringe and fear their own doom should that ever be realized. it is not unlike the what some people have said about the Pyraimids, all over the word, acting as possibly teleporation humbs, healing centres, energy geneators, and so on. Main stream Archeology refuses to suggest tha the Pyramids are far older than 15 thousand years old, dating back to before the last ice age.

Happy to see you also see big Pharma and Drs as purveyors of sickness, drugs, hospital beds and such.

I have no plans on buying Tom's books or any other book on theoretical physics, particle analysis, data streams, past history, future history and such things as mentioned by Tom. It is all I can do to try and understand myself and the Seth material. That will take the rest of my life.

In the interim, my immediate interest is to try and bring harmony to my body, as it is the only vehicle I currently have, that I know of. Recall chapter 2 in the "Seth Material" book, chapter 2 titled:  The York Beach images "Fragment Personalities."  This was the incident wherein Jane and Rob saw a counterpart of each of themselves in a "dancing establishment."

From page 27 of "The Seth Material":

... "The man and woman in the York Beach dancing establishment, were fragments of your selves, thrown-off materializations of your own negative and aggressive feelings, the images were formed by the culminating energy of your destructive energies at the time. While you did not recognize them consciously, unconsciously you knew them well. Unconsciously you saw the image of your destructive tendencies, and these images themselves roused you to combat them."

Thank you for your feedback, Great to make your acquaintance on this forum. It is not like many other forums where one liners or two, are the main stary and people avoid long dissertations. As you can see I tend to get a bit wordy. (LOL) A very good and productive year for you my firend.

Quote from: Yeoshi Yamamoto
A quote from "The Nature of Personal Reality", page 98, though the page number may not match a different publisher or  book format.

... "A man believing he has heart trouble will finally, through his own anxiety, affect the functioning of his "involuntary" system until his heart is definitely harmed if the belief goes unchecked. The conscious mind directs the so-called involuntary systems of the body, and not the other way around. No idea slips insidiously past your awareness to affect your involuntary system unless it fits in with your own conscious beliefs. Once more, you will not be sick if you think you are well — but there may be other ideas that make you believe in the necessity for poor health."

... "Within the basic framework of the body chosen before physical birth for reasons that will be discussed later), the individual has full freedom to create a perfectly healthy functioning form. The form is, however, a mirror of beliefs, and will accurately materialize in flesh those ideas held by the conscious mind."

... "That is one of the body's primary functions. A sick body is performing that function then, in its way, as well as a healthy one. It is your most intimate feedback system, changing with your thought and experience, giving you in flesh the physical counterpart of your thought. So it is futile to become angry at a symptom, or to deride the body for its condition when it is presenting you with the corporeal replica of your own thought, as it was meant to do.

... from page 142 - "If you shed the distorted concepts of unnatural guilt and accepted the wise ancient wisdom of natural guilt instead, there would be no wars. You would not kill each other mindlessly. You would understand the living integrity of each organ in your body and have no need to attack any of them.

This obviously does not mean that the time of the body's death would not come. It does mean that the seasons of the body would be understood as following those of the mind, ever-changing and flowing, with conditions coming and going but always maintaining the splendid unity within the body's form. You would not have chronic illnesses. Generally speaking, and ideally, the body would wear our gradually while still showing far greater endurance than it does now.

I see Seth talking about data often in his books, and it is quite conceivable to me that Tom interpreted the information in his terms. After all, his profession is physics. So, depending on the type of baggage you bring to the table, you will interpret the contents of the Seth material in that context. This not meant as a negative criticism of Tom's work, as clearly a huge effort and great experience leads Tom.

I do not claim to have heard everything Tom has said, as that would be an Herulenian task, but to date I have not heard him mentioned of the other books by Seth and Jane. Linear time is a fact in our physical reality. My interpretation of the Seth material is that such a reality exists only here and nowhere else. Thus there is no linear time in dreams, and other realities and other universes. As for linear time in OBE, I just do not know, though the OBE is tied to our physical body. On death, of course, time disappears totally.

Reading the Seth material is not like reading any other book. The words, expressions, and logic in them is quite dense, and it requires multiple readings to gather as much information from it as we can. Jane's 22 books are a mountain full. To try and understand it all is nearly impossible, as Seth often speaks about his perspective on our system. So we must go back and read over and over the books. Not easy to do in our busy lives.

My gut feeling about Tom is that is very sincere, and honest in his work. I also agree with you that he is more than capable of introspection as new ideas come to him, or new discoveries or paradigms are presented.

Perhaps I should write to him and inform him of "My  Little TOE."  Sadly my little toe was amputated and I am now forever doomed by a theory of nothing. (LOL) Just having a bit of fun.

The bloody US government apparently confiscated all of Tesla's original work, or so I read, true or untrue, how the hell would we ever know. But his claim to an endless supply of electricity or energy would make multiple corporations cringe and fear their own doom should that ever be realized. it is not unlike the what some people have said about the Pyraimids, all over the word, acting as possibly teleporation humbs, healing centres, energy geneators, and so on. Main stream Archeology refuses to suggest tha the Pyramids are far older than 15 thousand years old, dating back to before the last ice age.

Happy to see you also see big Pharma and Drs as purveyors of sickness, drugs, hospital beds and such.

I have no plans on buying Tom's books or any other book on theoretical physics, particle analysis, data streams, past history, future history and such things as mentioned by Tom. It is all I can do to try and understand myself and the Seth material. That will take the rest of my life.

In the interim, my immediate interest is to try and bring harmony to my body, as it is the only vehicle I currently have, that I know of. Recall chapter 2 in the "Seth Material" book, chapter 2 titled:  The York Beach images "Fragment Personalities."  This was the incident wherein Jane and Rob saw a counterpart of each of themselves in a "dancing establishment."

From page 27 of "The Seth Material":

... "The man and woman in the York Beach dancing establishment, were fragments of your selves, thrown-off materializations of your own negative and aggressive feelings, the images were formed by the culminating energy of your destructive energies at the time. While you did not recognize them consciously, unconsciously you knew them well. Unconsciously you saw the image of your destructive tendencies, and these images themselves roused you to combat them."

Thank you for your feedback, Great to make your acquaintance on this forum. It is not like many other forums where one liners or two, are the main stary and people avoid long dissertations. As you can see I tend to get a bit wordy. (LOL) A very good and productive year for you my firend.

It's true that the government snapped up a lot of his work. The claims about unlimited free electricity etc - well that would have taken time and more experimentation from Tesla himself -seeing as how during his lifetime he already tried several ventures that failed -and most of his work is beyond the layman (me) to really speculate on. It's not the govt have the "recipe" for free unlimited electricity just lying around or anything. Tesla is the key, more than anything he recorded, as with any good inventor, he never stops, he just keeps trying out different things until he finds what works.

Who knows if he might given the world free electricity, wireless etc - then again he might have (unknowingly) increased the total amount of brain cancer and other electro-smog related conditions and effects had he succeeded. There are so many unknowns, some of good, some of them not so.

But the govt grabbing his work/papers etc is public knowledge, it was in several non-conspiracy plain Biography documentaries.

Quote from: Deb
Q&A with Tom Campbell in Calgary, video 3 of 3.



Tom discusses discovering the Seth books (he worked with Bob Monroe, who also consulted with Jane/Rob/Seth).

Tom explains his disagreement with the Seth premise of simultaneous time, saying it was only because of Jane's limitations that she didn't quite transcribe Seth's message correctly.

Very interesting. I'd love to have more discussions with people about linear vs. simultaneous time. 

starts @ 47:00

Larger dimensions are within the larger consciousness system, so I would say what I'm calling a reality frame, you could call that a dimension. It begs the question here, what is a dimension? In my mind, a reality frame is a dimension so it's a different virtual reality. We are multidimensional beings, that's what Seth said. Seth Speaks was the first book I read that really makes sense. I read a whole lot of books when I was first getting going with Bob Monroe back in the early 70s and I wanted to read everything I could about it. I read some Eastern philosophy and that made sense. But as far as a book that wasn't so much about philosophy as a "here's how it works" book, Seth's were the first of those that said something to me, and some of it didn't compute with me, but a lot of it did. So I have a warm feeling for Seth.

But some of the things in Seth aren't quite right, and the reason they're not quite right is not that Seth didn't quite know what he was saying, it's because in a medium relationship, the medium gets the information and has to translate that information into their own words, their own interpretations and their own concepts. And as much as that medium has a good range of concepts that can explain and has a good set of metaphors that can the explain information, you get really good data. But inasmuch you have data that the medium doesn't have a good set of metaphors or ways of putting it together to say it, you get garbled data. And very seldom is that kind of relationship perfect. You get problems with it. Seth Speaks was very good and all-in-all I give Jane Roberts high marks for Seth Speaks. But there were a few things that got confused there. Like one of the things that Seth says is that everything happens at the same time. See that's a Seth statement, that's a Jane statement really. Everything is simultaneous. There is no time really, time doesn't tick because everything is simultaneous, everything happens at once. That's just not so, that's not logical at all. What happens is you have to have time, you have to have sequence of events. If you don't have a sequence of events, you don't have a before and after. If you don't have a before and after, you can't learn anything. You cannot evolve. All you can have is static. If there is no time ticking, if we don't have now, and after now, and after, after now, nothing could ever change. See, change itself implies time. There's no change without time. And everything doesn't happen at the same time, because then you wouldn't have any learning. Learning is sequential. You learn from this, and from that you build on that learning, you extend on that learning to learn, learning is cumulative. If everything happens at the same time, then there's no such thing as learning. So, it's not that way. One of the fundamental things, fundamental technologies, that consciousness system evolved was time. And the reason it evolved time as a fundamental technology is that time gives you another whole dimension of possibility. Another whole dimension of complexity. 50:57

51:36 But, I know exactly what Seth was trying to say. And what he intended to say but Jane didn't quite get it. And that is, that you have this probable future database, you have the present, you have the historical data base, both actualized and unactualized, and all of that exists at the same time. So you have the past, you have the present, you have the future, and it's all there. And you can go there any time you want. You can go to the past, you can go to the future, all this data across time in the database is available to you. And I think Seth was working down that line, and I think Jane got it that there's no time, everything is right now, past, present and future. Well in a way it is, if you're talking about the databases, everything is here right now, past, present and future, but that's not the big picture. That's just the picture around this virtual reality. It's the past, present and future of this virtual reality. But you see this virtual reality is just one drop in the bucket. There's other virtual realities, other places. So I think it was just a misunderstanding. 52:49 [goes on to talk about us being multidimensional beings]

I'm downloading the video now (as audio only) to listen to on my walk, I have listened to some other talks from Tom, but not this one.

Reading the text EXRACT: I'm confused on this bit:

**
"51:36 But, I know exactly what Seth was trying to say. And what he intended to say but Jane didn't quite get it. And that is, that you have this probable future database, you have the present, you have the historical data base, both actualized and unactualized, and all of that exists at the same time. So you have the past, you have the present, you have the future, and it's all there. And you can go there any time you want. You can go to the past, you can go to the future, all this data across time in the database is available to you. And I think Seth was working down that line, and I think Jane got it that there's no time, everything is right now, past, present and future. Well in a way it is, if you're talking about the databases, everything is here right now, past, present and future, but that's not the big picture. That's just the picture around this virtual reality. It's the past, present and future of this virtual reality. But you see this virtual reality is just one drop in the bucket. There's other virtual realities, other places. So I think it was just a misunderstanding. 52:49 [goes on to talk about us being multidimensional beings]"
**

Above this bit Tom says "it's not so" etc simultaneous time.
Yet, what he says here to me is straight from the Set material, agrees with what Seth says, and is my personal understanding (at least some of it) on simultaneous time both in concept, and in direct personal experience.
I've experiences probably futures and pasts in meditative states many many times.
I've also seen other times and places (that i have never been to) as if through the eyes of other people (other simultaneous incarnations) - so I would be curious what Tom would have to say on that topic, and whether he has also had those experiences.

From my perspective those other selves (both probable and other incarnations) all exist here and now, and when I see something through their eyes, or feel their feelings, I'm simply changing my focus from this "self" who is typing now, to that one, who are all connected through the oversoul, the same way I may have ten fingers and toes, but they are just extensions of my body. They are right next to each other, at the same time.

So are our probable selves and other incarnations, another reality frame is seeing a larger picture from the perspective of the over-self/oversoul.

I will listen to the audio in full, and see if I can find some more distinctions in what Tom is saying, as so for I don't see him saying anything contradictory or different to the Seth material. Other than the bit where he says it is not so.

Quote from: Yeoshi YamamotoFunny, I too, am 67 years old!

Yeoshi, I think there are also another couple of old boys and girls on this forum.

QuoteMy use of "law of probability" is perhaps the wrong way to put it. I meant that in an example where you drop 10,000 ping pong balls into a chute and that below the chute are pegs that allow the balls to go down one aisle or another, probability states that the balls will eventually be spread in a bell shape. The centre of the aisles will have the most balls, and the ones on each successive side will have less balls, thus the bell shape.

Yes, that is a good explanation, but I think the whole idea of things happening by chance is contrary to the Seth teachings. Creating your own reality means not leaving things to chance. I don't win the lottery because I choose not to win the lottery.

It is materialist physics which states that things happen by chance. According to Seth, consciousness creates physical reality.

QuoteFrom my perspective of the Seth material probable realities do not exits. You either have a reality somewhere out there or you do not. Frankly, I do not know if universes or other realities can be probable. When I hear the word probable reality, it means to me, that there is a reference scale or measurement that by which you can measure the likelihood of such and such a reality may appear. I know I am going way beyond my comprehension here, but given the premise of "you create your own reality", it is not a question of probability, you either create a new reality or you do not. There is no in-between, thus no probability.

It seems to me that the idea of probable realities is an essential part of the Seth teaching. I don't think "create yor own reality" means that you can create absolutely anything. There are limits. What I am able to do is to choose between a selection of probable realities. I can choose a reality in which I am in good health or one in which I am sick, but I can't choose a reality in which I am the Queen of England.

Seth does mention the idea of consensus reality. Reality as we know is what all the conscious beings on the planet have agreed to, usually telepathically. The consensus is that there is only one Queen of England, and people will not tolerate more than one.