Did Seth have anything to say about the "circle of life"?

[skyblue]

Hello,

I've been reading Seth for the past few years, I find his teachings liberating to say the least. Too bad I don't have anyone in real life with whom I can discuss the Seth material, so I thought perhaps I might try my luck online.

I believe that the universe is a loving one, but that contradicts the carnivorous nature of animals that prey on one another. I remember Seth saying something like, how the animals understand that and accept that, but it's hard for me to understand how a universe can be loving if it allows that.

What do you think?

[John Sorensen]

Hi, Seth talked about this sort of stuff a fair bit. I'm not good with specific references.
But basically animals know their connection to their greater selves always, and to them death is simply not death but a change in focus.
They each know and accept their place in the world.


This in no way excuses human cruelty of course, which to me is entirely un-natural.

[LenKop]

Welcome skyblue.

If you dont understand it then there is no contradiction. Some things we might never know so we need to trust. Nature has been doing a great job on its own, everything is in balance and the timing is perfect. Work on yourself and everything else will take care of itself.

LK

[James]

Hi Skyblue,

In Session 4, Rob asks: "Seth, why do human beings eat animals?"
Seth replies: "On your plane the law is such. More on this on another date. A cycle set up within your sphere, but not imposed upon it from without." (my emphasis)



It is interesting to note that this business of living things eating each other in order to stay alive, which Joseph Campbell referred to as the basic business of all life, and summed up in the phrase 'now you eat me, now I eat you',  is not imposed upon our system from without, but was a cycle that was set up in our system, implying that this evolutionary route did not necessarily need to happen as it did.

Nor do all life forms eat each other even today – the green plants with chlorophyll eat sunlight and excrete oxygen. Neither did the earliest cells eat other cells; they floated in the early seas nearly four billion years ago, and absorbed molecules of amino acids that they encountered at random.  This kind of foraging was a time-consuming process, and reproduction was slow. Eventually some cell-type found a way to consume other cells, obtaining ready-made proteins and other vital molecules all in one convenient package, vastly speeding up reproduction time. Soon this type of cell displaced most of the remaining cells, and the business of life eating life began, until the advent of chlorophyll in blue-green algae. (See Stephen Jay Gould's book 'Wonderful Life').

But Seth foresees a future in which we humans will not have to eat other life forms to exist.
From Session 32:

Rob asks "How about our killing animals for food?'

On your plane the hunter and the prey system is at this time a necessary one but it will not always be this way. A time will come when you will not have to kill in order to exist, and the balance of nature will take care of itself. This time is sooner on the way than you think. In your country, if there is peace, you will see its beginning in your lifetimes.

Rob: "Does this include doing away with slaughterhouses?"

It most certainly does. This involves your own intellectual technology, which will be quite able to maintain its population with synthetic proteins. However this technological development will come first; unfortunately the cor­responding ethical evolution will follow after.

There is a very practical reason for a reverence for all life, and very practi­cal reasons why man must learn certain facts that up to this point he has con­sidered impractical. He has usually managed to separate his ethical conceptions from his daily business life, but this shall be increasingly difficult for him to manage.

Until you learn reverence for all living things you will continue to slaugh­ter each other. Again, this does not involve punishment in any sense of the word. A reverence for life is a saving characteristic of any personality who has it."

[barrie]

Animals are mostly very cooperative and even compassionate--about 99 percent of the time. It is only about 1 percent of the time they are actually killing for sustenance--those that do. But on TV documentaries about animals--about 99 percent of the time, animals are shown attacking to eat. Animals have a spiritual biology which is instinctual. We are here, as humans, to learn to achieve that via our conscious minds and free will choices. Then, we would be able to consciously choose to act in harmony with our nature--which is good, loving and compassionate.

[John Sorensen]

Hi Skyblue,

In Session 4, Rob asks: "Seth, why do human beings eat animals?"
Seth replies: "On your plane the law is such. More on this on another date. A cycle set up within your sphere, but not imposed upon it from without." (my emphasis)

For all the suggestions of the ideas of "not eating animals" so far I have not come across deep thinker who has suggested any viable alternative sort of alternative.

For one thing, babies - human babies drink breast milk - which is high in essential fats and protein, the very building block of out bodies. They don't drink plants, and plants would be a poor substitute for a growing baby.

The healthiest strongest cultures (hunter gatherers and their modern descendants) all ate high volumes of fat and protein, and were the healthiest people documented on earth extensively by Weston Price in the 1930s. The weakest tribes were those that had not enough meat and animal fat/protein, there were physically weaker, and did not grow as tall, they did not reach their genetic potential as such.

Fast forward to modern times, and it's absolute madness. People suggestions worldwide "vegetarianism" or veganism as some sort of panacea for our coming food crisis. Any farmer will tell you that growing exclusively vegetables en masse would be a good way to decimate the land and possibly fast forward our own extinction.

I have yet to see anyone who is suggesting worldwide or even nationwide vegetarian who has thought  through the logistics of it. It just fails utterly on some many levels, and kind of ignore the natural order of things that has been around for at least 10,000 plus years. 

If there is another way of doing things, we have yet to fully conceive of it, let alone develop any sort of real plan of action, until then it is just pie in the sky idealism and magical thinking.

Personally, I do very poorly on a vegetarian diet. Lots of vegetables do not agree with my digestion at all. I function much better on meat/protein, and that is the diet we have been eating for thousands of years, we don't have the right enzymes to fully digest and utilize grains (despite eating them for a long time) and many of our modern allergies and diseases including obesity are directly related to grain consumption and all types of sugars.

For anyone who has ever tried a proper vegetarian diet, they will know that vegetables have so little calories that if you ate them exclusively you would keep losing weight, and fun malnutrition from not getting enough B vitamins (which are richest in animal foods).

If modern science came out with synthetic proteins, that were the equal of animal proteins, without horrible side effects like 99% of all drugs so far on earth, I would be the first to switch to them.

Another alternative would be to grow meat. That is flesh that has no brain nor heart, nor consciousness, and is purely for food. No doubt this would have all sorts of moral argument for and against.

I never understand people's wacky diets, however you look at it, something has to die for you to live. Be it microbes, bacteria, insects, plants, vegetables, animals etc.

Even strict vegetarians are still accidentally eating some insects in food, in their mouth while sleeping, or walking down the street. And while plants are a different type of consciousness than animals, they are alive, so if you eat them they cease to be alive.

I really have never understood why  of all things in the material world, some people want to make some aspects of god / all that is more "special" than others.
It's all made of light / atoms etc, so why be more precious about your own temporary body, the body of an animal, or a carrot? It's ALL sacred and all part of the same energy.

I really don't get it.

If somebody if going to figure out a way for us to be totally off animal food, planet wide for good they need to figure out:

*How to get the essential amino acids, Vit A + D etc which we no longer get from the animals, and cannot manufacture at present in our own bodies. Also Vit A from animals and Vital A from plants are a different chemical / nutrient, they are NOT the same, and this is a flaw in modern Nutrition than anyone familiar with paleo/primal diets will know about.

*How to change our digestive tract so that we can get nutrients from foods that at present we can't get full nutrition from

*Mass farming, growing, storage etc of food alternatives, and how will the shelf life last - high water content foods such as fruits and vegetables have a short shelf life and are very perishable.

Anyhow, it will be interesting to see what the future brings.
I personally would prefer NOT to eat animals, but doing that for two years was the worst diet I have ever tried, just way too deficient in nutrients, and as I said my guts just don't agree with a plant / grain diet - bloating, gas, forever on the toilet etc.


*Long term vegetarian diets are associated with weaker bones, and muscle mass atrophies faster. Animal calcium from milk, bone etc is better absorbed and utilised than plant calcium and supplements. Traditional cultures that ate a lot of fish such as Okinawa and Moari in New Zealand had bone density up to 3 times thicker than people who dwelled further inland. Also explains why in Karate many Japanese were good at breaking boards / stone with their skulls.

[Sena]

I really have never understood why  of all things in the material world, some people want to make some aspects of god / all that is more "special" than others.
It's all made of light / atoms etc, so why be more precious about your own temporary body, the body of an animal, or a carrot? It's ALL sacred and all part of the same energy.

I agree. This is an example of how Seth's teaching differs from Buddhism. Buddhism as it is commonly understood teaches that the eating of animal flesh causes "bad karma" which one may have to pay off in the next life. In contrast, this quote is from The Nature of Personal Reality:
"All time is simultaneous.... Reincarnation is a conscious-mind interpretation in linear terms.  On the one hand it is highly distorted.  On the other hand it is a creative interpretation.... But there is no karma to be paid off as punishment unless you believe there are crimes for which you must pay.  In larger terms there is no cause and effect either, though these are root assumptions in your reality."

[barrie]

Seth strongly voiced opposition to animal cruelty in slaughterhouses and scientific experiments. When it came to eating meat, he said to do so with respect and thank the animal. He did say that one day we would stop eating meat--but he didn't give any details as to how that would evolve. At least I don't remember reading it.

Seth (ESP Class, 3-17-70): "You will learn that consciousness is sacred. And until you learn that truth, you will not be free. You cannot kill another man, you cannot kill another woman and be free. You cannot even eat the meat of a cow, not nonchalantly. Not without thanking the cow for the food and the nourishment which it has given you, not without realizing that the cow, like yourself, is a part of the chain of life without which physically you would not exist and be free."

Barrie Comments: This next quote was said specifically to Jane about Jane--but it seems to have a wider application and implication:

Seth (Session 805):"A little more, here, concerning diet. You are, indeed, to a large extent, what you eat. You are bound up in the cycle of earth relationships. The eating of meat without doubt focuses the physical mechanism closely to the physical system. There is nothing wrong with this. If you are trying to develop inner abilities, however, and if you wish to allow yourself a mobility of focus, then moderation is this respect must be used. Eggs and milk and cheeses can be substituted occasionally without changing your overall eating habits."

[barrie]

Sena, here are two Seth excerpts on Buddhism:


Seth (ESP Class, 10-8-74): "And I do therefore joyfully speak of desire. There is no such thing as non-desire. The gods are filled with desire, and from their desire for fulfillment springs the miracle of your being, and from the desire of All That Is springs the miracle of those universes that you know; and if ever the gods cease desiring, then one by one would it seem that your own thoughts would become extinguished as if divorced from the sun.
           
"Yet even All That Is prevents this by endowing you with your own desire and creativity. So as long as desire lives through the universe, so does creativity continue and the times explode into times, and those times into time, and each time, and each being, and each thought, and each Buddha, forever unique and new.
           
"Those that speak to you of non-desire, carry within themselves fear of their own being, but even that fear is creative and even in the passion for annihilation is there desire.
           
"I bid you then good evening, and I speak to you from the known and unknown desire that gives you your own birth, and that speaks to you from the tiniest, least acknowledged thought that flies like a pigeon within your skull, and I speak to you from the desire that sings within the smallest molecule that, in your terms, is known[1] to thought; but that desire forms universes beyond knowing. And in this moment of your reality, and in the desire of your being, do you even create All That Is.
           
"Bow down before no man, no woman, and no belief – but know you are indeed the creators. When you understand that, you will know that you are what you are. You do not have to study to attain. You have simply to realize what you are, and journey through your own consciousness..."

---------------------------------- 


Seth (Session 177: "I may say that Buddhism does indeed come closer in essence to
reality than other religions. However, the Buddhists either have not
gone far enough, or have gone too far, according to your viewpoint.

"If they have gone too far, then they have been so concerned with
inner reality that they have become TOO tolerant of physical disease
and disasters. If they have not gone far enough, then they have not
followed through sufficiently so that these physical disasters could
truly be suffered without pain.

"They have the knowledge to a very large degree, but they have
fallen short. It is one thing to realize that all physical matter is
camouflage, and they know this. But this camouflage can be most
disasterous if it is not manipulated correctly. You are in no
position to ignore it. You ARE in a position to understand it and
use it.

"It is all very well for monks to utilize astral projection. It is
all very well for them to skitter through space as if they were on
pogo sticks; their knowledge is fundamental and good. The fact
remains that millions of human beings who follow and practice
Buddhism are told, as many religions tell their followers, "Better
worlds are to come, so ignore this agony, and this hunger, this
pain, and the murder in the streets. Be in ecstasy while your belly
bloats." This is not human, and it is FAR LESS than godly...

"The fullest potentialities cannot be developed unless the physical
aspects are also developed. Your job is to manipulate as well as you
can within the physical universe, to develop within it religious
leaders of any denomination. ANY leaders who restrict development
along one level for the sake of development along other levels,
betry their followers."

 

[Sena]

barrie, thanks for your Seth quotes on Buddhism.

"And I do therefore joyfully speak of desire. There is no such thing as non-desire. The gods are filled with desire, and from their desire for fulfillment springs the miracle of your being, and from the desire of All That Is springs the miracle of those universes that you know; and if ever the gods cease desiring, then one by one would it seem that your own thoughts would become extinguished as if divorced from the sun."

The above quote seems to show that Seth's teaching is fundamentally opposed to Buddhism, i.e. the Second Noble Truth:
"The Buddha had observed that life is suffering. Before He could find a solution to the problem of suffering in life, He had first to look for the cause of suffering. The Buddha was just like a good doctor who first observes a patient's symptoms and identifies the cause of illness before prescribing a cure. The Buddha discovered that the direct causes of suffering are desire or craving, and ignorance. This is the truth of the cause of suffering, which is the Second Noble Truth."
My knowledge of Buddhism is limited, but I am not aware of anything being said about pre-birth planning. I am also not sure whether this is explicitly stated in the Seth books, but I find that the concept of pre-birth planning is useful in understanding my own experience. This means that if I suffer in this life, I chose before my birth those circumstances which would cause suffering, in order to facilitate my spiritual development.

[John Sorensen]

Pre-birith planning does not come up in any Buddhist teachings I have come across. Doesn't mean it's not there, but I don't know about it.


However, there are many contradictions in just about any branch of Buddhism (or any world religion) such as the current Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso) who is said to be the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama WHO CHOSE TO BE REINCARNATED as a Bodhisattva on earth for the benefit (enlightenment) of all sentient beings.


Hmmmm, I see a contradiction there.


But trying to apply western logic and reason to mythic-magic eastern Buddhism is like trying to find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They are different world views, at different levels of cognition and growth and waking up. All valid, but quite different perspectives.

*And to address the issue on Buddha (Gautama) and suffering: no Seth does not agree with this ASSUMPTION and BELIEF. Which is what any of the noble truths are. If people choose to believe in them, well you get what you focus upon after all, it would seem to be the serpent eating it's own tail once again as with many magic-mythic belief systems (religious or otherwise) that are out dated in the current day.

Personally I find it odd that some Buddhists focus heavily on this truth of "suffering" but don't talk so much about the part of "there is freedom from suffering". Which is really all Eckhart Tolle talks about, it's just BEING without thought, or to put it another way, suffering goes from being "I AM Suffering" to "I EXPERIENCE Suffering" It goes from 1st person to 3rd person, so there is no longer exclusive identification with suffering, which is like any case of mistaken identity.


I am no more exclusively suffering than I am an ice-cream or I am exclusively my left hand.  All are true but partial, it's the exclusive identification of ones identity as any THING (material object, thought, emotion or otherwise) that causes the trouble and confusion.

Even one moment of direct experience of expanded self as higher self, cosmic consciousness, god consciousness, spirit etc is enough to dispel any such erroneous ideas for a lifetime. It's just not possible to go back to ignorance, or mistaken identity after reaching particular stages in Waking Up, there is a permanent change in understanding and perception of what is and what is not "self.


It might seem from my tone I'm being dismissive ff Buddhism, or throwing it out the window. No so, of all the world religions (all of which are badly outdated and simply in need of massive overhaul to survive into the future) Buddhism particularly Zen and the Mahayana tradition I have found most useful in application to my own daily life. Particularly the teachings on the Bardos and stages of dying, which very much mirror what Seth has to say on the process of dying, except the Tibetan teachings go into far more detail than Seth did of course. Of course, much of the teachings were inherited from Egypt and other ancient cultures that preceded any cultures or civilizations known to us today.



The Tibetan Book of the Dead (Liberation Through Hearing During the Intermediate State) and Egyptian Book of the Dead are quite amazing texts that are still very relevant today.

[John Sorensen]

Seth strongly voiced opposition to animal cruelty in slaughterhouses and scientific experiments. When it came to eating meat, he said to do so with respect and thank the animal. He did say that one day we would stop eating meat--but he didn't give any details as to how that would evolve. At least I don't remember reading it.

Seth (ESP Class, 3-17-70): "You will learn that consciousness is sacred. And until you learn that truth, you will not be free. You cannot kill another man, you cannot kill another woman and be free. You cannot even eat the meat of a cow, not nonchalantly. Not without thanking the cow for the food and the nourishment which it has given you, not without realizing that the cow, like yourself, is a part of the chain of life without which physically you would not exist and be free."

Barrie Comments: This next quote was said specifically to Jane about Jane--but it seems to have a wider application and implication:

Seth (Session 805):"A little more, here, concerning diet. You are, indeed, to a large extent, what you eat. You are bound up in the cycle of earth relationships. The eating of meat without doubt focuses the physical mechanism closely to the physical system. There is nothing wrong with this. If you are trying to develop inner abilities, however, and if you wish to allow yourself a mobility of focus, then moderation is this respect must be used. Eggs and milk and cheeses can be substituted occasionally without changing your overall eating habits."

I'm always grateful for food of all types. Some of my old friends were Hare Krsna dudes (both Europeans who had adopted Indian religious practices and immigrants from India) and some of those friends I was around for 3-4 years, I love the blessings on food, which to me is about gratitude, and acknowledging the sacredness in all things. I grew up very hungry, poor and underweight. So I am ALWAYS grateful for food.

I've read a great deal on fasting, and minimal eating, and I personally use intermittent fasting.
Many pseudo-spiritual types (the ones with broken circular logic who don't understand any type of Science or evidence based studies) will say things like you can't astral project if you eat meat and odd things like that. Which to me is taking on remnants of cultures that do that sort of practice, that also don't eat meat etc. But they take it as FACT. Which it is not in my experience.


Was Robert Monroe trying to turn the world into vegetarians?

Personally it makes no difference to me whatsoever for astral projection, lucid dreams, dream recall or whatever. With the exception that if you OVEREAT of anything before you sleep, it can make you sluggish as digestion uses a lot of blood. The more blood used in digestion, the less available for your brain.

Try writing an essay after eating a big christmas dinner for example. Not a good idea. Not enough blood for the brain.

What does make a difference in my experience is daily deep breating, getting lots of oxygen in tends to help just about everything, as out primary energy source is not food but oxygen. Food is the secondary energy source, and the primary source for nutrients etc and rebuilding the body. The other source of energy of course is out stored body fat, which is why it's a good idea to over eat AND under eat, so that all food can be used.

When food is plentiful, we can eat and get energy etc. When food is scarce we burn out bodyfat, fat being the most potennt source of fuel for our body (after oxygen for nearly all biological functions of course).

One of the most painful death is NOT starvation, but Crucifixition where the body is SLOWLY starved of blood and oxygen to the muscles and all parts of the body. The heart grows weak, and eventually is not able to pump the blood to extremities. We start to ROT while still alive, basically becoming a zombie.

Interestingly, several world religions focus on a famous dude who died this way and talk endlessly about his SUFFERING (which is a valid teaching) but not about how temporary the body is, or how the kingdom is "within you", the immortality of consciousness and instead focus on dogma and superstition and of course lots of wealth to keep "wheel" of indoctrination going.
The other fun thing is when the new religion came along, part of the "good news" was stamping out Reincarnation, which until then was pretty much accepted as true in the majority of ancient cultures.

[Deb]

Was Robert Monroe trying to turn the world into vegetarians?

Well I'll be darned, for some reason I didn't pick up on that about him.
Last year I won a trip to Joe Salatin's farm and FCLDF annual fundraiser in Virginia (yes I'm a nerd) and realized suddenly that The Monroe Institute was only about 30 minutes away. I've been wanting to do one of his programs for years now. I did visit the compound. Beautiful setting out in the middle of nowhere. Peaceful. I felt very close to the earth there. But I've gone off topic...

Has anyone seen this old topic, Meat or not to meat?

Jane was not a vegetarian and she was psychic, astral traveled and channeled Seth! What more evidence can you ask for? Taking into consideration the Seth concept that what we believe is of the utmost importance, then if we think a certain food is bad for us it certainly will be. In that light, I wonder where his diet advice comes into play? I always struggle with putting this type of stuff in perspective: Seth says we should do x-y-z but Seth also says that what we believe is what's operative.

I guess I was making an assumption that Jane was not a vegetarian, I don't recall that ever actually being said.

The other fun thing is when the new religion came along, part of the "good news" was stamping out Reincarnation, which until then was pretty much accepted as true in the majority of ancient cultures.

Another control tactic (religion was the original government)? It's much easier to control people when they think there's only one life to live and they either go to heaven or hell when it's over. And why are so many religious people so afraid to die, if they think they're going to heaven? Could it be that they fear they are not? Christianity typically demands perfection, no one could make the grade. Maybe that's why born again got so popular, all you have to do is accept JC as your personal savior and you're in. My son used to come home from the neighbors' homes when he was little and ask me, "Mommy, does it hurt when you burn in hell?" lol

[Deb]

I'm adding this tidbit to this topic and to the Meat or Not To Meat one as well.

"A cat playfully killing a mouse and eating it is not evil. It suffers no guilt. On biological levels both animals understand. The consciousness of the mouse, under the innate knowledge of impending pain, leaves its body. The cat uses the warm flesh. The mouse itself has been hunter as well as prey, and both understand the terms in ways that are very difficult to explain.

"At certain levels both cat and mouse understand the nature of the life energy they share, and are not—in those terms—jealous for their own individuality. This does not mean they will not struggle to live, but that they have a built-in unconscious sense of unity with nature in which they know  they will not be lost or immersed.

"Man, pursuing his own way, chose to step outside of that framework —on a conscious level. The birth of compassion then took the place of the animals' innate knowledge; the biological compassion turned into emotional realization.

"The hunter, freed more or less from animal courtesy, would be forced to emotionally identify with his prey. To kill is to be killed. The balance of life sustains all.

"He must learn on a conscious level then what he knew all along. This is the intrinsic and only real meaning of guilt and its natural framework.

(Long pause.) "You are to preserve life consciously, then, as the animals preserve it unconsciously."

The Nature of Personal Reality, Session 634

[barrie]

Hi Sena:

I believe it is a little too strong to say that Seth teachings are fundamentally opposed to Buddhism. He does have disagreements, but he also said:

Seth (Session 177: "I may say that Buddhism does indeed come closer in essence to
reality than other religions. However, the Buddhists either have not
gone far enough, or have gone too far, according to your viewpoint.

Barrie Comments: This, to me, is not a statement of opposition...despite any disagreements Seth has with Buddhism.

[barrie]

Was Robert Monroe trying to turn the world into vegetarians?

Hi John, Seth did say that naturally, at some point, all folks will choose to be vegetarians. This is from memory...but I can't find the quote.