Life in Framework 2?

[Deb]

Hi everyone,

For the past few days I've been thinking about starting this topic. I've always had this vague image of what life in F2 is like. Then today I began reading the unpublished sessions Mary had gathered, and immediately, on page 1, came across something that made me want to get this ball rolling.

Seth: "Now this is not for our book. I would, and I might be able to, let elements from my own environment appear in the room, but if I did so you would only be able to sense them. You would not be able to perceive them with your physical senses. This would not be a materialization in other words." Session 516, 02/18/70

Framework 1 is where we are now, in this physical reality. There are endless other realities, considering probable realities, incarnations and different "systems" as Seth calls them. Framework 2 to me is basically on part of the nonphysical realm, he's said that there are also nonphysical systems. (I'm not sure if those would be considered part of F1 or F2.) It seems there are also other "levels" or frameworks, such as where Seth II resides.  Seth also said several times there is no separation, no closed systems and no levels. See the spoiler below.

This quote today was another clue for me. We are here, living in a material world. We are equipped with five senses to observe things that exist in our material world. We are creating/materializing within our framework. It seems that what exists in F2 can only be sensed here with our sixth sense, intuition. The quote above sounds like for some reason F2 "elements" cannot be materialized here. Although Seth was able to at one time materialize a figure to some degree, and was able to manipulate Jane's hand, so he could manipulate what was already physical. At least the hand was already physical.

I remember being impressed with Seth's describing a 13th (?) century desk in his "office", maybe also a view out the window. But this is all manifested imagery? Such as, I dream about things, but they do not exist in this reality yet at the time seem real enough in my dreams. Am I making any sense? It's hard to get the right words together.

So, what are your understandings, impressions, interpretations, visions of what non-physical life is in F2? By the time we're done incarnating in F1, we have a handle on creative use of energy and so can create quickly and efficiently. But what will we be doing when we're not creating antique desks and libraries full of books yet to be written? Not everyone volunteers to be a speaker or guide after "retirement" from F1. Ideas?

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

[LarryH]

Did Seth ever say that he lives in Framework 2? That is the implication of your post, Deb. My understanding or interpretation is that Seth lives in a different reality, but Framework 2 is simply all of the probabilities and potentials available for consciousness to select from in manifesting the physical world. In terms of quantum physics, it is the wave form that consciousness can "collapse" into physical reality. It is Bohm's implicate order, whereas what we experience is the explicate order. Similarly, the after-death (or between lives) reality is also not Framework 2, but a reality in which the rules and consciousness are different.

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hi Deb,

Kind of synchronistic you starting this thread today 

I binged watched a show on Amazon last night called Undone. Without giving away too much, it's essentially about a girl who gets in a severe car wreck, then upon coming out of a coma flips between 3d reality life, and the afterlife. There's a bit more to it than that, I don't want to give out to many spoilers either.

I guess you could say she flips between framework 1 and 2. Framework 2 happens seemingly randomly and she trys to figure out how to deal with that when it happens, and trying to stay anchored in framework 1.

Imo, whoever wrote the script for that 1 season series, was very familiar with Seth's concepts. It's a cross between animation and cartoon type setting. Really cool show, I'm definitely going to rewatching.

[Sena]

Framework 1 is where we are now, in this physical reality. There are endless other realities, considering probable realities, incarnations and different "systems" as Seth calls them. Framework 2 to me is basically the nonphysical realm, although he's said that there are also nonphysical systems. (I'm not sure if those would be considered part of F1 or F2.) It seems there are also other "levels" or frameworks, such as where Seth II resides.  Seth also said several times there is no separation, no closed systems and no levels. See the spoiler below.

Deb, thanks for bringing up this important topic, which is not very easy to understand. This is Lynda Madden Dahl's take on it:

"What exactly is Framework 2? Seth uses different terms for it, such as a realm or sphere of action, the inner sphere of reality, the inner dimensions of existence, a state of consciousness. Clearly from these various descriptive words, it is not an easy task to cleanly categorize Framework 2, at least in name. But we do know where it resides, and that is in the spacious present in simultaneous time, because that's where all consciousness and the psychic gestalts it forms always reside. To put Framework 2 in a greater context first, as already mentioned there are many other frameworks in the spacious present, both physical and non-physical, used by consciousness for particular explorations. Explorations into what? Into itself; always into itself. Always expanding itself through its own learning; that's what consciousness does. None of the frameworks are hierarchies or levels to aspire to, because the same consciousness can have experiences in any number of frameworks simultaneously (remember the ability of CUs to be in multiple places at once?)." (from "Living a Safe Universe, Vol. 3: A Book for Seth Readers (Living a Safe Universe: A Book for Seth Readers)" by Lynda Madden Dahl)

https://amzn.eu/eJylqhP

"Given what we know about Frameworks 1 and 2, where and how does death fit into the picture, especially mass deaths? What we call death Seth says is merely the transferring of our own energy into another state of being or sphere of action. What that means is with death we are fully in the inner universe again, out of the root assumptions of Framework 1 and working within the root assumptions of Framework 2-until we move through it into Framework 3, that is, where we then become intimately familiar with our reincarnational identities; or alternatively, go directly to Framework 4, which is the creative source of other kinds of realities not physical or time-oriented." (from "Living a Safe Universe, Vol. 3: A Book for Seth Readers (Living a Safe Universe: A Book for Seth Readers)" by Lynda Madden Dahl)

[Kyle]

Hi all, I'm new here, thanks for having me. I'm excited to discover this group!

This post brings up questions for me. Here's a quote from the same year, in Seth Speaks:

Seth: "The soul perceives all experience directly. Most experiences of which you are aware come packaged in physical wrapping, and you take the wrapping for the experience itself, and do not think of looking inside. The world that you know is one of the infinite materializations taken by consciousness, and as such it is valid."
—SS Chapter 6: Session 528, May 13, 1970

When he talks about the world of direct soul experience, distinct from its physical wrapping, to me this sounds like the same distinction that he makes between Frameworks 1 and 2. He uses different language and metaphors, but isn't he talking about the same thing? And then this, about Framework 2:

"Now let us look at Framework 2. Your ideas come and go effortlessly, without impediments, with a sense of ease that is taken for granted. [...] That freedom comes from Framework 2, as does the great creativity it makes possible. So in certain terms everyone exists in Framework 2. Many people, however, live out their lives, practically speaking, in Framework 1."
—TPS4 Deleted Session September 19, 1977

I can see how it's helpful to use different language to describe the same thing, but I feel the need to ask, are we seeing these things in similar ways? For another instance, I use the term "imaginal" to describe both the dream world and the sense in which astrology and archetypes can best be understood. Sounds like Framework 2 to me.

So, I hope folks here enjoy venturing (carefully) across the boundaries that separate these things in Framework 1. Speaking of which, another quote:

"Look at Ruburt's Turkish dream. It was as real in Framework 2 as a dish or an apple. [...] Ruburt's dream had motion also, rolling, say, off the edge of Framework 2 into Framework 1, where lo and behold it changes its form and becomes a book."
—TPS4 Deleted Session November 7, 1977

For anyone who learns how to do lucid dreaming (not a talent of mine) it seems like that would be one key to Framework 2. But there are other keys, like astrology. Also, this quote expresses the metaphorical nature of Framework 2, where it's "lo and behold," while in Framework 1, Jane and Rob work their fingers to the bone for months and it becomes a book. 😊
Kyle

[Sena]

For anyone who learns how to do lucid dreaming (not a talent of mine) it seems like that would be one key to Framework 2. But there are other keys, like astrology.

Kyle, welcome to the forum. I am curious to know how astrology comes into this. I think there is some basis to astrology, and I posted a personal experience middle of last year.

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=2073.msg16377#msg16377

[Deb]

Did Seth ever say that he lives in Framework 2?

I don't recall Seth saying anything about where he "is," other than non-physical reality. I mentally I tend to lump all non-physical existence together because I currently can't observe any of it, only what's here.

@TM thanks for the heads up on Undone, I'll definitely check it out. It seems like the last couple of years or so there have been more shows that deal with multiple realities and other Seth-like concepts. Recently I came across a Netflix series, "If I hadn't Met You." I guess the title gives it away, but it's a man who's had a terrible tragedy and someone shows him how to travel to alternate realities. He's on a mission, but it's a little different than what I would have expected.

@Sena thank you for Lynda's information on frameworks. Yep, Lynda to the rescue for sure. I especially enjoyed the second quote, where she goes into moving into Framework 3, where we become familiar with or recreational identities. And Framework 4, wow. And beyond 4? It's hard to not want to label them as levels. Framework 4, which is the creative source of other kinds of realities not physical or time-oriented. I'd like to know more about that. That's where I was headed with what life is like... I would have titled this "Life in non-physical reality" if I'd thought about it more before I started writing.

@KylePierce, welcome to forum and thank you for jumping right in! GREAT quote from Session 528! I love Seth, always a clever way of presenting information.

I take the frameworks as a non-physical but conscious states, the part of ourselves that remains aware but not materialized in a physical form. I see F2 as being our home base while we incarnate over and over into F1. I do see our dream state, lucid dreams, out of body travels and telepathy closer to our non-physical existence than our awake state. I think what makes some of this difficult to "know" (meaning, my deepest knowing) is that in order to explain these things, Seth has had to use words that separates states into levels. And then says to keep in mind that nothing is separate. But it seems like levels to me, maybe levels of understanding, such as the way Seth explained in that session 528. At our level we take the wrapping for the experience. Such as reading a Seth book for the first time, many people take the words literally and may not get the deeper implications. Which is why each time we go back and read them again, a greater depth of understanding is achieved, as if Seth is constantly adding new things to his books. He did say that we create the very books we read.

"You may perhaps argue that the book was manufactured physically, and did not suddenly erupt through Ruburt's skull, already printed and bound. You in turn had to borrow or purchase the book, so you may think, "Surely, I did not create the book, as I created my words." But before we are finished we will see that basically speaking, each of you create the book you hold in your hands, and that your entire physical environment comes as naturally out of your inner mind as words come out of your mouths, and that man forms physical objects as unselfconsciously and as automatically as he forms his own breath."
—SS Chapter 5: Session 523, April 13, 1970

I saw this on FB this morning, thought it was pretty funny and goes back to my "life after physical reality" question:

"Now bodies are not at such a high premium. They are not as valuable as you may suppose. There are simply not that many personalities anxious for physical existence. You put a very high premium upon your physical life. In many cases, however, those who have left it are glad to leave it behind. They are not all that anxious to get back in."
—TECS2 ESP Class Session, October 6, 1970

I kind of feel that way at times. So those personalities that are not incarnating... I wonder what they are doing instead?

[Sena]

There are simply not that many personalities anxious for physical existence. You put a very high premium upon your physical life. In many cases, however, those who have left it are glad to leave it behind. They are not all that anxious to get back in."
—TECS2 ESP Class Session, October 6, 1970

I kind of feel that way at times.  So those personalities that are not incarnating... I wonder what they are doing instead?

Deb, it would seem that those personalities (or entities) that are not incarnating are those like Seth or Seth2. They may be creating universes.

[Kyle]

You may perhaps argue that the book was manufactured physically, and did not suddenly erupt through Ruburt's skull, already printed and bound.

Thanks, Deb... very much on target! I have plenty to learn about this and so lately, I'm doing a lot of re-reading Seth books that I read in the '70s. Seth bugs me sometimes, then and now, when he leaves me feeling like, well dang it, why can't we have nice things? But then, I know better than that, Seth taught me well, way back when. We chose to be here in this world of limitations and challenges.

I will post a Hello and tell my story soon, I hope. 

[T.M.]

Hi All,

Hello and Welcome @ KylePierce! 

Imo, All these framework levels suggests to me we are living in a simulation. Each framework being it's own kind of training ground. That's just me 

Deb, Thanks for the recommendation of, If I Hadn't Met You. Next time I get Netflix I will definitely watch it! I love shows with Sethian themes, and overall, how time + space + consciousness interact type shows. Even if it's an imaginative interpretation on the writers part. I think just entertaining and contemplating how that all works starts bringing answers of how it actually does to the seeker 

[Kyle]

Kyle, welcome to the forum. I am curious to know how astrology comes into this. I think there is some basis to astrology, and I posted a personal experience middle of last year.

Thanks, Sena, I read your thread and am excited to see that other Seth readers have taken notice of Seth's comments on astrology, and are curious enough to do some exploring. I do lots of that. Here's something I started writing recently that seems to fit here nicely:

"... having to do with the nature of the psyche's "initial" entry into your system. I am hinting here of connections with astrology, though certainly not with the astrology currently known... There is a connection between what is loosely called astrology and reincarnational data, by the way."
—TPS3 Deleted Session March 13, 1974

Seth didn't speak highly of the current state of the stellar art, in this and other quotes. And yet Seth did leave hints of true "connections with astrology." So, I have my own take on these connections, that a Sethian astrology could grow out of the study of Sethian counterparts, using methods developed for this purpose. He has left a door open here to such a development, it seems to me.

Why would Seth even suggest that there's more to astrology than astrologers have been able to grasp? Or that the "astrology currently known" is so limited that depending on it would be a non-starter? That is, unless he knew of a more evolved stellar art and wanted to tease or provoke his audience with it. A probable future astrology is exerting a strong attractive force on me these days. Whatever Seth had in mind, I'd be grateful for some more hints.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

There may be some Seth readers who basically categorize everything as being either FW1 or FW2. This is a binary, dualistic, black and white type of thinking that many of us do, because it's easier for us to process things in this binary kind of way. But as we know, life isn't always just black and white. Sometimes it also contains a grey area, and sometimes, when we opt to view things from a binary standpoint, we tend to completely miss this grey area.

When we take this black and white, binary approach to Seth's discussion about FW1 and FW2, we tend to miss or overlook some of what Seth has to say about several other ideas and concepts.





It turns out that Seth did have quite a bit to say about FW1 and FW2. A lot of what he says about these 2 frameworks can be found in NOME, and GOJ ("The God of Jane").

In NOME, Ch 2, S815, Seth holds a great discussion about FW1 and FW2, where he uses an analogy of people watching a TV program for FW1. In this analogy, all of the "behind the scenes" activity that occur (the writers, the actors, the cameramen, the program director, and all of their work, etc.) is an analogy for FW2.

In this session, Seth says, "As you do not know what happens in the television studio before you observe a program, however, so you do not know what happens in the creative framework of reality before you experience physical events. We will call that vast "unconscious" mental and universal studio Framework 2."

Along with this, Seth also talks about the inner ego and how they relate to FW2. In NOME, Ch 3, S822, Seth says:

Your world is populated by individuals concentrating upon physical activities, dealing with events that are "finished products" — at least in usual terms. Your inner egos populate Framework 2, and deal with the actual creation of those events that are then objectified. Since "the rules" of Framework 2 are different, that reality is not at all bound by your physical assumptions.




Again by categorizing everything as being either FW1 or FW2 we tend to overlook some of the things that Seth says, that don't necessarily fall into these two categories. One of the big things we miss is that Seth tells us that FW1 isn't really "real" even though it appears to be. He also tells us that behind everything, there exists a "mental" or "psychological" reality.


SS, Ch 3, S519, Seth tells us that physical reality is an illusion:

[...] I mention this whole subject here, however, because I want you to see that your environment is not real in the terms that you imagine it to be.

Your planetary systems exist at once, simultaneously, both in time and in space. The universe that you seem to perceive, either visually or through instruments, appears to be composed of galaxies, stars, and planets, at various distances from you. Basically, however, this is an illusion.


In NOME, Ch1, S803 Seth tells us that behind all realities there are "mental" states.

The sculptor's creation is pragmatically realistic, in that it exists as an object, and can be quite legitimately perceived, as can your world. The sculptor's statue, however, comes from the inner environment, the patterns of probabilities. These patterns are not themselves inactive. They are possessed by the desire to be-actualized (with a hyphen). Behind all realities there are mental states. These always seek form, though again there are other forms than those you recognize.


In NOME, Ch7, S855 Seth tells us that the universe is a mental or psychological manifestation; not an objective manifestation.

The universe is — and you can pick your terms — a spiritual or mental or psychological manifestation, and not, in your usual vocabulary, an objective manifestation.

[...] Its properties are psychological, following the logic of the psyche, and all of the physical properties that you understand are reflections of those deeper issues.

[...] You want to examine the universe from the outside, to examine your societies from the outside. You still think that the interior world is somehow symbolic and the exterior world is real — that wars, for example, are fought by themselves or with bombs. All of the time, the psychological reality is the primary one, that forms all of your events.



In addition to all of this, Seth did on very rare occasions talk about both FW3 and FW4. What he had to say about these two frameworks, tends to show us the boundaries of FW1 and FW2. 

In "The God of Jane", Ch 13, Jane quotes from Session 864. In this session, Seth talks about FW3 and FW4. In this session Seth says the following:

"Framework 2 is connected with the creativity and vitality of your world. In your terms, the dead awaken in Framework 2 and move through it to Framework 3, where they can be aware of their reincarnational identities and connection with time, while being apart from a concentration upon earth realities. In those terms, the so-called dead dip in and out of earth probabilities by travelling through Framework 2, and into those probabilities connected with earth realities.

Some others may wind up in Framework 4, which is somewhat like Framework 2, except that it is a creative source for other kinds of realities, not physically oriented at all and outside of, say, time concepts as you are used to thinking of them. In a way impossible to describe verbally, some portion of each identity also resides in Framework 4, and all other frameworks.

Some invisible particles can be in more places than one, at once. Some portions of each identity can also be in more than one place at once. It is a matter of focus and organization.


In NOME, Ch 3, S818, Seth talks about where the primary encounter occurs. In this session Seth says the following:

As I try to increase your capacity for understanding, and to expand the scopes of your abilities, so in other kinds of worlds I do the same thing. While our meetings take place in your time, and in the physical space of your house, say, the primary encounter must be a subjective inner one, an intersection of consciousnesses that is then physically experienced.

The encounters themselves occur in a Framework 3 environment. That framework of course, again in terms of an analogy, exists another step away from your own Framework 2.3 I do not want to get into a higher-or-lower hierarchy here, but the frameworks represent spheres of action. Our encounters initially take place, then, beyond the sphere that deals exclusively with either your physical world or the inner mental and psychic realm from which your present experience springs.




Next, in SS, Ch 3, S520, Seth tells us the following:
"Environments are primarily mental creations of consciousness thrust out into many forms. I have a fourteenth-century study, my favorite, with which I am very pleased, for example. In your physical terms it does not exist, and I know quite well it is my mental production. Yet I enjoy it, and often take a physical form in order to sit at the desk and look out the window at the countryside.  "


Given what Seth says in GOJ, Ch 13, S864, I think that what Seth is telling us here is that this fourteenth century study, was created from FW4 and it exists in FW3.

Likewise, I also suspect that Janes, "Library" that she talks about in Chapter 1 of her book, "Psychic Politics" was also probably created in FW4 and it exists in FW3.



Anyone who tends to categorize everything as being in either FW1 or FW2 probably won't recognize that Seth says that FW1 isn't really "real", that Seth says behind everything, there exists a "mental" or "psychological" reality and that Seth's fourteenth century study and Jane's library do not come about as a result of a FW2 creation.


-jbseth

[Kyle]

I saw this on FB this morning, thought it was pretty funny and goes back to my "life after physical reality" question:

"Now bodies are not at such a high premium. They are not as valuable as you may suppose. There are simply not that many personalities anxious for physical existence. You put a very high premium upon your physical life. In many cases, however, those who have left it are glad to leave it behind. They are not all that anxious to get back in."
—TECS2 ESP Class Session, October 6, 1970

I kind of feel that way at times.  So those personalities that are not incarnating... I wonder what they are doing instead?

Hi Deb, I guess I tend to romanticize the afterlife, but my take is that almost anything would be like chillin' after this earthly life. Seth might say, that shows how provincial my views are. So when he talks about different families, like the Sumari, are these beings with no physical bodies? Somehow I think they have subtler bodies but then so do we, in some traditions.

So, I seem to be concerned about having some kind of body, but that's just what I'm used to.

Also, while I'm at it, at what level of existence do we no longer see any haters? A question I'm afraid to ask.

[LarryH]

So, I seem to be concerned about having some kind of body, but that's just what I'm used to.

I've been re-reading The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher, the World View of William James. Just last night, I read the passage where he says that he has a body if he wants to, and then he forgets about it and doesn't have a body. But anytime he wants it, he has it.

I was just telling another Seth reader today that I like this book at least as much as almost any Seth book.

[jbseth]

Hi LarryH, Hi All,

Recently, I've been rereading sessions from both UR1 and UR2, and your comments reminded me of Seth's ideas regarding "Worldviews". I just reread, UR2, Section 5, S718, which is all about "Worldviews" and I've also taken another look at Jane's "William James" book. It really does contain a lot of interesting information in it.

It seems to me that no matter what Seth or Jane Roberts book I happen to be reading, I always end up really liking it.

Thanks for the reminder of just how great Jane's "William James" book, really is.  

-jbseth 

[Deb]

So when he talks about different families, like the Sumari, are these beings with no physical bodies? Somehow I think they have subtler bodies but then so do we, in some traditions.

There's an older very lengthy post here about The Nine Families of Consciousness. Click on the link and it will take you there. Basically the families are not beings but rather categories of  consciousness. A few people commenting in the topic related them to astrological signs.

Seth:
"... these counterparts form psychic families. They are family representations on another level.

"... now there are races, physically speaking. There are also psychic counterparts of races – families of consciousness, so to speak – all related, yet having different overall characteristics or specialties." [session 732]

So we can be here in physical bodies, and be a part of a family of consciousness just as we would be in non-physical existence. Here's a little more:

Seth: "Now these families fall generally into certain groups. In greater terms you can 'cut the pie' however you want to, but you will still share an emotional and psychic feeling of belonging with the family of which you are a part. And (with broad amusement) most of you here are Sumari, and it demands great discipline of Sumari to take down lists – even of psychic families." [Appendix 26, session 734]

The direction Paul takes with his blog post is really amusing and worth a read, or skim at least.

[Deb]

Also, while I'm at it, at what level of existence do we no longer see any haters? A question I'm afraid to ask.

I meant to answer this earlier... got sidetracked.

As far as romanticizing the afterlife, I do that as well. I feel like we're in boot camp here.

My feeling is once we are done with our reincarnational cycles we won't have to deal with haters, because our understanding of being connected will be deeper at that point. We are here in physical reality to learn, and sadly it appears we are in kindergarten. Or at best, elementary school. Think of Groundhog Day too—what a great movie about learning. We're also here to experience and represent every scenario possible, as ATI is experiencing "everything that is" vicariously through us. So while we deal with good, there are also the bad and ugly, and dealing with the bad and ugly is another learning opportunity. One I could live without, but it seems I volunteered for this job. We can't fix others, we can only learn how to deal with them.

Also, not everyone on the planet is at the same level of spiritual growth. I feel like I just have to keep focused on where I am as an individual and do my best to deal with others who behave badly—preferably from a distance.