Consciousness learning to handle its own energy

[jbseth]

Hi All,

This year, as a result of COVID, we have been talking quite a bit about mass events. However over the years, we've also talked about other related mass event issues such as the environment, overpopulation and things like that. In Session 498, Rob was blowing off some steam about various related concepts and in this session, Seth replied to him about this. 

Some of what Seth has to say here really comes from a very different perspective of what's actually going on here. I've put some of this information in the spoiler below, it's kind of long, and it's quite a different take on mass events.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

- jbseth

[Sena]

The horror and the results of mismanagement, and the vulnerability, are the teaching methods that each consciousness has accepted before entering your system. There is no way out but to learn or to ruin the entire system. In no other field of reality are the terms so drastic. For this reason the inner self withholds much of its knowledge. There must be no leaning upon the very basic fact that behind and within the system there is relief. You must believe in the physical reality and accept the vulnerability.

jbseth, thanks for drawing our attention to this important Seth session. I think it is significant that in some situations "the inner self withholds much of its knowledge". This may explain why some people, especially those in power, do silly things,

Not only this, but even if the race as you know it distorts itself beyond belief, or even destroys itself, the many will not forget. The knowledge, hard won, would be as instinct when the race began again. The losers then would become stern teachers, having learned through experience.

Seth seems to be saying here that it is a possibility that the human race could destroy itself. Perhaps the reason he is saying this is that physical reality on Earth is only an experiment, and that real life is elsewhere, perhaps in Framework 2.

Although destruction of the human race is a "possibility", if a sufficient number of humans follow Seth and similar teachers, it may be possible to prevent such an eventuality:

"The main nature of events, the majority of events, do not in quotes "solidify" until the last moment, in your terms. According to your understanding and interpretation of the word, events, none are predetermined by a source outside of yourselves. The given environment of your childhood for example was chosen by you and determined by you. Within this framework you also gave yourself the freedom to manipulate and change. The main events of a civilization are chosen by its people, but because a course is begun this does not mean that it cannot at any point be changed. Events are materialized in your time from their origins in notime, then. (Long pause.) There is no end in those terms to the source or supply of probabilities, therefore notime is not a static, completed cosmic storehouse. It is being continually added to. Each event that you form from any given set of probabilities automatically gives rise to new probabilities." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 9 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts, Session 438)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/0C6oOI9

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

In S498, Seth started this brief discussion of the connections between mass events and probable worlds and then he concluded it, in the very next session, Session 499.  What he says in S499, is also pretty interesting as well.

Given this then, let's say that the people of one probable reality choose to "take on" a powerful mass event like a deadly plague.  Now, in taking on this plague, if the people of that probable reality do end up destroying themselves, then that information becomes available to the people of another probable reality, such that they can avoid the failing aspects of that scenario. Seth then tells us that there have been  disasters that those of us in this probable reality have avoided, because others in other probable realities have experienced them and learned from them. It's kind of like a mass sharing of information.

Seth also has some interesting things to say about the "survival instinct", "conscious projections" and Rob's probable self, Dr.Pietra (see "The Seth Material" Chapter 15, or TES9, S486).



So given all of this, the question of why did we create the COVID mass event this year, seems to perhaps have an answer at another level of understanding within the Seth philosophy. And this has to do with the idea of the existence of probable realities, some of which we also participate in and the fact that we really don't destroy ourselves, even if at an ego conscious level, it appears that we do.

(The following spoiler is much shorter than the last.  )

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

- jbseth

[Sena]

Any event that you would consider disastrous to your race, brought about by the race itself, would be used in another probable system to avoid the same sort of error. There are disasters and dead end roads that your race has avoided completely, because in other systems of reality the lessons were learned and learned well.

jbseth, it is useful to know that the mistakes we are making in handling the current viral plague are helping those in another probable reality to avoid the same sort of mistakes.

[jbseth]

jbseth, it is useful to know that the mistakes we are making in handling the current viral plague are helping those in another probable reality to avoid the same sort of mistakes.

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Not only that, but other parts of "ourselves" also exist in some of these other probable realities. Thus, not only are we helping others, in these other probable realities, but we are also helping other parts of ourselves as well.

-jbseth

[leidl]

The race also realizes well the advantages and disadvantages of the physical reality it has adopted. It knows for example that there is a tendency to go to extremes. I mentioned earlier that the rewards, the challenges and the dangers exist precisely because so much freedom is allowed.

Hello jbseth, Sena and all,

After reading through the material posted by jbseth here, which was new to me, I'm standing a little taller.  Being someone who doesn't relish conflict, recent culture wars wear on me.  The perspective that in this reality ideas quite naturally move toward their extremes, and that we accept the danger this presents when we choose to come here, makes me realize I must have more courage than I was consciously aware of!

Seth's words here also make me want to examine my own mind for extremism, and try and understand what I can learn from living in a time like this one.  We have people who want to live free or die during the pandemic, and we have people who want to lock down to save every possible life.  Perhaps we should be trying to incorporate some of the opposing view with the one we are naturally biased toward.  It is so natural to want to defend one's own point of view.  But when we do that, we are defending the identity of a limited self that has come here to learn and expand!  Why would I want to do that? 

"The horror and the results of mismanagement, and the vulnerability, are the teaching methods that each consciousness has accepted before entering your system."

All of us are horrified by what we believe is mismanagement of our society by those who hold opposing views, but I'm going to try to reflect more on the danger and extremism within my own point of view--that is the perspective I actually have some control over!

And yes, it is absolutely a huge comfort to know that if we mishandle the virus, politics, race wars, climate issues etc. too badly, from a larger viewpoint, we can be confident that "nothing had been destroyed."  Even if the self I'm currently experiencing does nothing but faceplant for the rest of my days, my larger self and consciousness as a whole will benefit from those faceplants.   

[Sena]

"The horror and the results of mismanagement, and the vulnerability, are the teaching methods that each consciousness has accepted before entering your system."

All of us are horrified by what we believe is mismanagement of our society by those who hold opposing views, but I'm going to try to reflect more on the danger and extremism within my own point of view--that is the perspective I actually have some control over!

leidl, thanks for your valuable contribution, but I don't quite agree with what you have written. You seem to imply that we should not "take sides" in an argument. I don't think Seth is saying this. Sometimes we do need to take a side, but the fact that we are Seth readers is due to the fact that our inner selves have not "withheld" their knowledge from us. The majority viewpoint is unenlightened because their inner selves have withheld their knowledge. We should not be afraid to state our point of view, but obviously we are not going to war over it. Seth is NOT telling is to sit on the fence.

If we take the example of the current pandemic of fear, the majority viewpoint is a result of the fear of death. The majority are afraid of their own death or the death of their loved ones. They don't mind if poor people become even poorer and die of starvation due to the economic consequences of lockdowns. If Seth has helped us to overcome the fear of death, we don't have to agree with the selfish majority view.

There may be lessons to be learnt from the destruction of the world economy as a result of lockdowns:

"There would indeed be a mass transference of consciousness, but not necessarily at all to one particular reality. The individual consciousnesses involved would not for example necessarily choose to start anew, in the same kind of reality, agreeing to form more or less identical conditions. They would however definitely go where their experience could be best utilized, and where their intimate knowledge of destruction be best used as a tool. To some degree such a destruction would be felt in all realities. Some probable selves would have shattering dreams of disaster. Other worlds would quake with the psychic reflections. Give us a moment here. I am speaking theoretically, but those in the probable system, according to their own knowledge and capabilities, could also help your own system to avert disaster under certain conditions. This is rather an involved subject; and it would also be highly dependent upon your willingness to be helped. The race has called out before for help, and received it. It can only accept certain kinds of help, and the help in one way or another must be initiated at least from its own pool of energy, and its own bank of personality gestalts." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 9 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts. Session 499)

Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/gbAHMMv

[jbseth]

Hi leidl, Hi Sena, Hi All,

Thanks for your comments.

I think that Seth is discussing a lot of interesting ideas here, when you really take a look at it. 

For one, he seems to be introducing the idea, that at some level, it really doesn't matter if we ultimately destroy ourselves.

He also seems to be suggesting a "purpose" behind this, in that consciousness is learning how to handle energy.

Then again, he also seems to be talking about various "cycles of entry" into this system. There appears to be some who are first timers, who are just figuring everything out. There also appear to be those who are more experienced than these first timers. These are "led into temptation" and are the ones who start wars. Then there appears to be some who are very experienced, like Rob, who've put in their time and may be impatient with those who are still learning.

When I think about the various religious and political viewpoints that exist in our world today, in this "cycle of entry" idea of Seth's, these 3 levels of experience (1. first timers, 2. more experience than first timers, and 3. very experienced, like Rob) do appear to be a good representation of how many people seem to view things in our world today.

Then, along with all of this, Seth also talks about other interesting ideas such as our instinct for survival, conscious projections and probable selves.

-jbseth

[Sena]

For one, he seems to be introducing the idea, that at some level, it really doesn't matter if we ultimately destroy ourselves.

jbseth, I don't agree with that view. Seth is not saying that "it does not matter" if we destroy ourselves. He says we can LEARN from episodes of destruction. Destruction occurs when the inner self "withholds" knowledge from certain people. These people still have a choice to make, and if they make the wrong choice, it is hoped that they learn from that mistake.

Seth's words are as follows:

"There is no way out but to learn or to ruin the entire system. In no other field of reality are the terms so drastic. For this reason the inner self withholds much of its knowledge. There must be no leaning upon the very basic fact that behind and within the system there is relief. You must believe in the physical reality and accept the vulnerability."

When Seth says "the terns are so drastic", what I understand is that it is really important we make the right decisions and avoid destruction if possible. It may not always be possible to avoid destruction.

[jbseth]

Hi Sena, Hi All,

Thanks for your comments.

That's an interesting perspective on what Seth is saying here. However, this isn't how I interpret what Seth is saying here, and that's OK. 

While we interpret this differently, I certainly don't know that I am right and you are wrong and that isn't what I'm saying here. I suspect that if we were to ask 20 different people, we might get several more interpretations than just our two.



From my interpretation, Seth said:

Each experiment is a success, regardless of whether it succeeds or fails in your terms...

And the reason why this is true (my interpretation) is because Seth also said:

"consciousness" is "learning to handle its own energy."

And then, along with this, Seth also said:

"There is no way out but to learn or to ruin the entire system."


Thus, either way, whether we "learn" or whether we "ruin the entire system", each experiment is a "success".




From my interpretation, when Seth said, "In no other field of reality are the terms so drastic.", I don't interpret this to mean that it is really important we make the right decisions.  Instead, I think that he's is saying something different.


Seth tells us that these "abilities and potentials are not only being developed in this system but in others." He also says that "the challenges and the dangers exist precisely because so much freedom is allowed."

Then he tells us that because of this freedom in our system, that the greatest potentials emerge from it.

He says, "it is from this system that the greatest potentials emerge;".

Thus, from my interpretation, when Seth said, "In no other field of reality are the terms so drastic.", what he's actually telling us is that our field contains the greatest freedoms and because of this, it is our field where the greatest potentials emerge. Thus, when he says "In no other field of reality are the terms so drastic." what he's actually saying here is that in no other field do the greatest freedoms and do the greatest potentials emerge.

From my interpretation, this comment about the terms being so drastic, isn't an issue about making the right decisions.  Making the right decisions doesn't really matter because each experiment is a success, regardless of whether it succeeds (and we learn) or fails (and we ruin the entire system). This comment is just about the fact that it is our system that has the most freedoms and the greatest potentials.



- jbseth

[leidl]

Hi folks!  Enjoyed your posts.

You seem to imply that we should not "take sides" in an argument.

I can see how you'd think that, Sena, especially since I mentioned being conflict-avoidant.     It is mostly extremism that I feel concerned about, though, and the tendency of viewpoints to move naturally in that direction in this reality.  For example, I do choose certain names on the ballot, and stand behind those choices.  But I also want to be aware that my viewpoint depends on a certain narrative with certain unprovable assumptions.  Others are working from a different narrative with different unprovable assumptions.  We should all have some humility about our assumptions, right?  Forgetting that our assumptions are assumptions is what leads to extremism.

If Seth has helped us to overcome the fear of death, we don't have to agree with the selfish majority view.

I'm not completely free of the fear of death yet...getting there.  Getting better at seeing how my beliefs create my reality, too.  But since I haven't been successful at believing headaches away, I'm not going to assume that I can believe the virus away.  If I still need a placebo like aspirin, I probably still need a placebo like a mask.  Beliefs are complex, and I'm not conscious of all of mine.  Working on it, but that's a tall order!

For this reason the inner self withholds much of its knowledge. There must be no leaning upon the very basic fact that behind and within the system there is relief.

This is such an intriguing quote to me.  So in the case of most people, the inner self withholds much of its knowledge of itself as a multi-dimensional being that exists outside of time.  Most benefit from holding (at least temporarily) the terrifying belief that life is something that can be lost forever.  But some of us are not withholding this knowledge from ourselves any longer, or we are at least in the process of letting it go.  I enjoy contemplating why I might have chosen to no longer withhold the knowledge from myself....

Making the right decisions doesn't really matter because each experiment is a success, regardless of whether it succeeds (and we learn) or fails (and we ruin the entire system).

When taking the largest view I can possibly take about the human condition, I am not worried, jbseth, and I take your point.  I am at peace, and quite intrigued to see how we'll get out of the various pickles we've gotten ourselves into.  But many will suffer if this grand experiment of ours goes up in flames--including the body I'm currently wearing.  It may be true that in some ultimate sense it doesn't matter if we blow it all up, because we can always go back to the drawing board.  Nothing is lost--only gained!  But still, isn't the compassionate choice to minimize suffering where we can?  Isn't that why Seth spoke, and why we're learning to speak too? 

[Sena]

For this reason the inner self withholds much of its knowledge. There must be no leaning upon the very basic fact that behind and within the system there is relief.

This is such an intriguing quote to me.  So in the case of most people, the inner self withholds much of its knowledge of itself as a multi-dimensional being that exists outside of time.  Most benefit from holding (at least temporarily) the terrifying belief that life is something that can be lost forever.  But some of us are not withholding this knowledge from ourselves any longer, or we are at least in the process of letting it go.  I enjoy contemplating why I might have chosen to no longer withhold the knowledge from myself....

leidl, a sceptic might say that people like us who believe in an afterlife are deluding ourselves because we don't want to face the harsh reality of physical existence. An existentialist like Jean-Paul Sartre would have said that. I think that is a point of view that we need to take seriously. I certainly don't think that Seth is advocating escapism. Seth's statement that "There is no way out but to learn or to ruin the entire system. In no other field of reality are the terms so drastic" is proof of that. What it implies is that when we have a clear view of a problem, we should not be afraid to take a side. I don't think there is a danger of a Seth reader becoming extremist. Extremism is a result of believing in a vengeful "God" who says, "if you do this, this, or this, you will be damned forever."

[jbseth]

When taking the largest view I can possibly take about the human condition, I am not worried, jbseth, and I take your point.  I am at peace, and quite intrigued to see how we'll get out of the various pickles we've gotten ourselves into.  But many will suffer if this grand experiment of ours goes up in flames--including the body I'm currently wearing.  It may be true that in some ultimate sense it doesn't matter if we blow it all up, because we can always go back to the drawing board.  Nothing is lost--only gained!  But still, isn't the compassionate choice to minimize suffering where we can?  Isn't that why Seth spoke, and why we're learning to speak too? 

Hi leidl, Hi All,

Your question about compassion and suffering is a good one. In answer to this, here's my personal (jbseth) opinion of what Seth is saying here.  Other people will no doubt have a different opinion than this, and that's OK, my opinion here, may not in fact be correct.


Seth says that each experiment is a success, whether it succeeds (and we learned how to handle energy) or it fails (and we didn't learn how to handle energy, and we ruined the system).  From this then, I take it that there is some sort of criteria or difference here that separates the successes (where we learned) from the failures (where we didn't learn).

My take on this is that in those experiments that were successes, where we learned how to handle energy, we also learned other things like the need for compassion and respect for other forms of consciousness (humans, animals, nature, plants, trees, nature, etc.).  This, I suspect, is very much a part of why that specific experiment was a success and not a failure. 

In the book, "The Nature of Personal Reality" Seth talks about "violations" and in his "Mass Events" book he talks about how Framework 2 is geared towards the positive. I suspect that understanding these concepts or perhaps, just living by these concepts, may play some part in those experiments that are a success.

I suspect that in "learning how to handle energy", we also learn about, and successfully apply some of these other concepts, as part of this learning process.

- jbseth