Mike's commentary · Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Session 921

The "Reading Guide" and "Chapter Highlights" for this chapter were summarized by an AI editor based on the main text below; they are not things Mike said during the lecture. The main text comes from Mike's commentary, and the blockquotes are Seth's original words (the portions Mike read aloud).

Introduction

This session continues from the phenomenon of schizophrenia, pointing out that automatic writing, hearing voices, and telepathy are often communications among different parts of the self; repressed desires become personified through cultural archetypes such as Christ, the devil, or aliens, and issue commands. Gods and devils are seen as psychological realities that people have projected outward and not assimilated. Seth also explains that reality is primarily a mental phenomenon. In pagan times there was no label of schizophrenia; the next step should be to re-assimilate these projections in order to restore potential.

Key Points of This Chapter

• Many schizophrenic manifestations, such as automatic writing and hearing voices, are the result of communication between different parts of the self, and the powerful parts that are seen are often those that have been isolated.
• The typical personalities that appear in schizophrenia, such as Christ, the devil, and aliens, often borrow images already present in the culture and reveal repressed desires or difficult situations.
• Devils and demons have no objective existence; they are unassimilated, outwardly projected parts of human psychological reality.
• There was no schizophrenia in pagan times, not because the relevant behaviors did not exist, but because the belief system of that era did not interpret such behaviors as schizophrenia.
• Humanity has not yet taken the final step: reaccepting and assimilating the personalities and abilities that have been projected outward.

Main Text

Session 921: Schizophrenia, Culture, and the Nature of Reality

This session began on Wednesday, October 8, 1980, at 9:05 p.m.

At the start, Jane's arms and legs were aching from time to time, but she felt that those moments of discussing the magical approach—the ones that had been inserted in between—had brought about beneficial changes in her, and there were still good shifts taking place. Although her arms and legs still had a lot of soreness, she was very pleased to see the progress of the paper she had been writing.

Jane said Seth might talk about reincarnation, schizophrenia, and possession, and that he would link these three topics together. I could immediately see how they sometimes related to one another, yet I could not state specifically what that connection was.

For example, the connections among these three points. First, why did Seth continue to talk about schizophrenia? Because he had discussed this topic in the previous session, and he had discussed it in great depth, so he necessarily had to make a follow-up continuation.

Second, Jane brought up reincarnation because of a casual speculation I made at dinner. I had heard a piece of local news about how a man and a woman had begun a radical new style of communal living—that is, a way of living different from that of a traditional couple—which had startled many people in our area. I began to speculate: could reincarnational connections that had been stirred up also be having an influence on the behavior of such a pair? Usually, in modern social analyses of people's behavior, such factors are never taken into consideration, yet sometimes they may really play a very important role. Because Rob has been transmitting the Seth material for many years, he knows that in this overt reality of ours, there are many hidden unknown realities determining everything, and among these are the possible influences of hidden reincarnational factors. So Rob wanted Seth to discuss this question. But on second thought, I obviously had no intention of assuming that reincarnational relationships could or should be used to rationalize behavior in this life. I did not mean to say that we should find a reincarnational excuse for this person's life or development in this lifetime, or for each of our own. Because in any human situation, many other psychological factors are involved. You cannot blame everything on reincarnation.

As for the specific influence between reincarnation and this present life, if you are still not very clear about it, you can go back and study The "Unknown" Reality again. In that book, the probable worlds, the probable selves, including the probable selves of reincarnation, have already been explored very thoroughly. But that relationship is not something that can be simply summarized in a sentence or two.

Third, possession. Why did Jane mention possession? Because today I brought up an article in an academic journal we subscribe to. What it wrote about included popular knowledge we were already familiar with—simply put, most of the authorities in the greater part of the Roman Catholic Church recognized that almost all those people presumed to be possessed by evil forces were actually psychiatric patients in need of treatment. Yet the Church had to acknowledge the reality of the devil and of many demons existing separately, because their existence had already been established in the Gospels¹—because the Bible says so. When Pope Paul VI announced before thousands of people in 1972 that the devil was a definite, real existence², this contradiction was reinforced.

That is to say, in the Catholic Church at that time, and continuing up to the present, the popes and bishops for the most part shared a consensus: those so-called devils and demons were all mental patients, all psychiatric patients in need of treatment, not really any kind of devil. But because the religion they believed in—the Bible, including their bishops—publicly acknowledged that the devil truly existed, on the one hand you inwardly believed that these people were actually mental patients, and on the other hand you affirmed that the devil really existed. This in itself is a self-contradiction. Because this matter is related to schizophrenia, Jane brought up the subject of possession and being possessed.

Seth came through directly, and with gentle humor said that we would continue with our psychology. Why gentle humor? Because they were continuing to discuss phenomena like schizophrenia. Schizophrenia belongs to a topic within the category of traditional psychology, so Seth joked, "We continue with our psychology." But Seth's viewpoint is completely different from traditional psychology. That is to say, in this session he would launch into a deeper exploration of schizophrenia, extending from the specific individual to the social and cultural level, discussing this question from a broader perspective.

Once again, communication between various dissociated portions of the self often appears as automatic writing, speaking, hearing voices, or through a telepathic message that the person believes comes from someone else.

All of this he described—including automatic writing, telepathy, hearing someone speak to you, giving you orders, telling you things—as if you had connected with someone or other, things like that. He said that most of the time when such things happen, what is going on? It is the self communicating with a certain portion of itself. Originally it could have integrated all of this together, but when it cannot integrate it, it can only rely on this kind of method to communicate. If this method becomes severe, it can manifest as serious schizophrenia; if it is mild, then it is a typical kind of trance, an inability to concentrate consciousness, talking to oneself, or just strange behavior that other people find odd—depending on the degree of severity.

The hypothetical telepathic message can be attributed to contemporaries, enemies, gods, devils, or whatever—extraterrestrials being an added item.

He said that telepathy is something only contemporaries have. For example, between you and me, only people who exist in this world at the same time can have telepathy. So this kind of situation is generally attributed to telepathy from contemporaries. He gave many examples: enemies, gods, devils. Recently many people have been talking about extraterrestrials—I have some connection with Sirius or some such star—extraterrestrials are a topic that has become popular recently. The most popular things now are "lightworkers" and "star seeds," and they connect with these things again. Because it is more fashionable this way—if you say you are now connected to the Jade Emperor, it carries a bit of a rustic air, so they generally speak of the most fashionable interstellar alliances, star fleets, and so on.

In most cases, what we see is the manifestation of a powerful portion of the self.

When we see such phenomena in real life, or in spiritual circles, you immediately understand: these people are seeing that powerful portion of themselves. Each of us is inherently complete, and each of us has divinity within. But in this three-dimensional world, divinity cannot fully manifest itself; it is subject to certain limitations. Yet that powerful inner portion is self-aware, and this portion expresses itself in such an exaggerated manner—saying that I am in telepathic communication with someone or other, in order to display its own power. This is a manifestation of that powerful portion of the personality.

It is to some extent deliberately isolated.

Why can it only be through telepathy? Because this shows that the powerful portion is isolated, manifesting as some god or extraterrestrial secretly connecting with him through telepathy, and connecting only with him alone—no one else knows, only he can obtain this ability. This is an act of isolation.

Psychologically, these manifestations may appear or disappear.

That is, they come out for a while and then are gone, so he feels that this is real. They represent a chain of command, but this chain usually does not last very long. What is meant by a chain? It means it appears for a while and then does not appear. When it reaches the top of your consciousness, it will very clearly issue you instructions—representing All That Is, representing this or that, giving you all kinds of directives; after a period of time it disappears again, no longer exists; after another period of time it appears again. This intermittent appearance represents this cycle of commands. When it cycles to the top of your consciousness, you can feel it; when it leaves the focus of your conscious awareness, you cannot feel it. It is a chain that constantly issues you commands.

Particularly when voices or communications issue commands to be obeyed, they represent advantageous but repressed intentions or desires, strong enough to form their own personification around them.

Some people experience a kind of command-type, order-type phenomenon: you must do this, you must be such and such, you must immediately go somewhere, you must carry out some great mission, and so on. What causes this state? Seth is peeling back the layers to explain the reasons behind these phenomena. When this kind of thing occurs, it is generally because the person has very repressed intentions and desires—he wants to do something, but cannot accomplish it in reality, and has suppressed it for a very long time. At this point he conjures up a powerful force, like a powerful personality, which through an inner voice, through the manner of a higher self or a deity, issues him commands, saying you must do such and such. These are all personifications—personifications of what? They are personifications of your repressed but powerful desires, personifications of your intentions. Remember, they are not real; they are personifications of certain repressed beliefs of your own.

Some can smoothly manifest a normal personality.

Some of these personifications—again I emphasize, they are personifications of your repressed but very powerful desires and intentions—are very adept ("smoothly") at manifesting what seems like a normal personality. He himself has vitality, like a complete personality, not yourself, but like another independent personality conversing with you and issuing you orders. He is very mature, steady, stable, authoritative, dignified, brooking no argument, brooking no resistance—very interesting indeed.

But for the person involved, he very much believes in such an existence. Especially for people who have studied spiritual knowledge but have not yet studied it thoroughly, beginners are in great danger. We often say that many people have gone off the deep end in their studies. And many people, in the course of their studies, emphasize the need for protective deities—what is the reason? It is precisely out of fear that you will enter into this state—you have not yet learned it clearly, and then you are controlled by such illusions. What is called going off the deep end is being controlled by your own illusions, and these illusions are created by yourself, so you become trapped inside the illusion and cannot get out, obeying it and being controlled by it.

By contrast, this appears quite real.

This is more real than the automatic writing or mere telepathy mentioned earlier—there is a complete personality coming out to converse with you and issue you commands.

However, this rarely happens; the probability of this kind of thing occurring is not high. Most of the time it is hearing certain voices, occasionally receiving some instructions, but often they leave—they are not always present; after delivering their message they depart, appearing and disappearing. The second state just described is more persistent; it is like a split personality, becoming your second personality, appearing frequently. But the probability of this kind of thing happening is not that high.

Usually what you see is, say, a half-personality, or even less than half a personality—a fragmentary expression of impulse or desire.

That is, a fragmentary expression of certain repressed impulses, not even amounting to a complete independent personality. Most of them are not complete; only a very few cases show a complete personality. Most of them are fragments of certain obsessions—you see that it is extremely stubborn, insisting on doing something, and no one can persuade it otherwise, no one can hold it back. We can imagine that the thing it wants to do is a desire that has been repressed for a very long time.

It is only dramatized in a fragmentary fashion.

Everyone must remember, this is a dramatized expression. When it manifests, it is like acting, like some deity or something, very lifelike—it becomes a voice that the person hears, or a perception that something is present. Just as many people say, "I feel my higher self has come," "I feel an angel," "I feel someone is beside me"—they feel they can hear a voice or perceive someone's presence. This feeling is real to them, but other people cannot feel it at all, because it is all a hallucination produced by themselves. Other people can only see them conversing with the thing they perceive, listening to it, obeying it—he will tell you, "So-and-so is telling me something," "My higher self is telling me something," "The Buddha is telling me something," "Someone is telling me something." This is a dramatized expression.

In many instances, the main personification instead has a ritualistic quality, making use of psychological patterns already present in the art, religion, or science of that culture. As a result, you have Christ, extraterrestrials, assorted saints, sprites, and other manufactured personalities whose characteristics and abilities are well known.

That is to say, the person involved will make use of the things from the culture and era he is in—whether from religion or from science and technology—everything he knows, and from this all kinds of things will appear: in China it is more often from Buddhism, in Islam it is more often Allah or Muhammad, in a religious context there is God or Jesus, while modern young people who grew up on science fiction will conjure up more things that are extraterrestrial, technological, galactic. These are all related to culture. Why must they use these typical figures? Because the characteristics of these figures are well known, and their abilities are also well known—if I say that so-and-so has appeared and possessed me, and is communicating with me, then I do not need to introduce how powerful this person is; as soon as I say it, you all know. So he will use these widely recognized typical figures as representatives.

Then why does he not choose an obscure person? Why not say I am from an unknown planet? Why must he say the well-known Sirius, some star, Andromeda, rather than an unnamed numbered alien? Because that has no real power, it is not impressive. He must say a very powerful figure, and one that everyone knows. Through the typical figure he chooses, you can roughly judge what kind of problem he has encountered. If he chooses a very powerful person, then in reality he has no power; if he chooses an emotional type, then in reality his emotions have been repressed; if he chooses a person completely opposite to his own character, then that part of his character is the repressed part.

In other words, you have typical schizophrenic patterns of all kinds.

There are many typical saints, sprites, and personalities available for schizophrenia to use. Some people also fabricate some unconventional, completely nonexistent personalities, and do not use these typical ones—just as some people feel that big names are too ostentatious, and want to fabricate an unconventional one. He said these are all typical of schizophrenia. When a schizophrenic person says these things, do not be surprised or astonished, because what he says will fall into just a few broad categories: religious, cultural, scientific, literary.

And at any given time, the particular pattern chosen will point quite clearly to the person's basic problem and dilemma.

In any individual case, through the typical figure he chooses, you can judge the dilemma he has encountered—that is, the repressed portion of his intentions and desires.

Such cultural patterns exist in society in the first place because in one way or another they express, in exaggerated form, certain portions of a psychological reality that he has not yet understood.

These typical personalities all express, in exaggerated form, certain portions of his inner reality. For example, if he worships martial force and a sense of power, he will conjure up a figure with a robust physique; if he feels he is a magician, he will imagine himself as a master of magic like Doctor Strange; if he worships machinery, he will feel he is a technological giant like Iron Man. He takes this typical figure and uses it directly, but the personality he uses is only an exaggerated expression of certain portions of his own personality.

This applies to what we call good schizophrenic typical personalities, as well as bad typical personalities.

Here there is no distinction between good and bad; the reason "good and bad" is put in quotation marks is this: there is no such thing as good or bad; it is only that a certain portion of the person's individual personality is expressed in an exaggerated manner. But in our world of dualistic opposition, there is certainly good and bad—if he connects with the Buddha, it represents good; if he gets involved with Satan, it is bad.

In such an instance, the "communication" with gods or demons, Saint Paul or Hitler, represents the dramatization and exaggerated personification of a portion of the personality.

He is not truly communicating with the personality of Hitler or Saint Paul; rather, it is communication between one portion of his own personality and another. He has dramatized and personified a portion of his own personality. For example, a portion of his personality has characteristics like Hitler's—extreme racial tendencies, the intention of optimizing the race—and he also identifies with such extreme racist views, but in Western countries racial issues absolutely cannot be brought to the surface, so he suppresses himself, and finally, through the method of "Hitler is communicating with me," he uses the typical personality of Hitler to express that repressed portion. That dramatized, personified virtual personality then begins to issue orders—because it happens to be at the top of his consciousness where commands are issued.

At this point Seth paused for a long time; he did not know how to continue. Finally he summed it up in one sentence.

First of all, reality is primarily a mental phenomenon.

This sentence is very important. We have discussed for a long time "what exactly is reality"—the nature of personal reality, the nature of mass reality, the unknown reality, and so on. What is reality? It is the real, the actual. In English it is called reality, and it can be translated as "reality" or "actuality." Seth gave one sentence: reality is primarily a mental phenomenon. Note—he did not say "entirely" or "absolutely"; he used "primarily." He is very rigorous; he did not deny that reality has an objective portion, but he said it is primarily a mental phenomenon. You cannot omit the word "primarily" and say "reality is a mental phenomenon"; to say it that way would be biased.

In it, the sense perceptions have been organized and put together in such a way that the physical perfectly mimics a nonphysical experience.

Seth said this is very difficult to express, because a psychological awareness utilized through the sponsorship of the flesh automatically makes certain distortions of data necessary. Why is it difficult to express? Because the reality that you experience directly through the physical body is not the same as what he is expressing. In physical perception, it is not a mental phenomenon, but a material phenomenon, an objective phenomenon. When you touch something cold and touch something hot, the feeling is different; touching metal and touching skin produce completely different tactile sensations. You say it is a subjective world, yet in physical perception, most of the time, or the vast majority of the time, it is an objective, material experience.

But he said earlier that the sense perceptions are "organized"—organized by what? Organized by your beliefs! Although he did not say it explicitly here, your sense perceptions are organized by your belief system, put together, with the various physical senses—what Buddhism calls the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body—plus "mind," which is your cognitive ability, your perception, organized together by your brain to form a cognition of the external world.

Then he said the physical perfectly mimics a nonphysical experience. Why do you feel that this material world is so real? It lies precisely in the word "physical"—it physically, perfectly mimics a nonphysical experience. If you want to speak of the nature of reality, this one sentence has already said it all: a nonphysical experience, through a physical perfect mimicry—mimicking what? Mimicking the feeling of it—and the feeling, the experience, the mental phenomenon thus obtained, is called reality, is called the real, is called actuality.

You say I cannot understand; can you be more specific? Simply put, is not all the matter you come into contact with composed of atoms? Are not atoms composed of electrons, neutrons, and protons? Going further down, there are quarks, and further down there are even smaller particles. Up to now, the smallest unit that physicists have been able to infer is the string in superstring theory³—a tiny unit at the Planck length, 10 to the negative 35th power meters⁴. Why is it called quantum mechanics? Because it cannot be smaller than this unit—it comes in discrete packets, not infinitely divisible, so it is called quantum. Fine, let us assume that the material world is composed in this way. But is that what you experience? No. What you experience is stone, cement, steel, glass, animals, plants, the body, food, air. You are not experiencing a physical experience directly, but you have made a perfect mimicry—a simulation—of this physical experience. Remember, what is simulated is physical, so what you feel is the surface of metal, delicious food, beautiful scenery—so real.

But are they really like that? Our most elementary physics tells us they are not. The earth is rotating, and its speed is not slow—can you perceive it? You cannot. The earth is also revolving around the sun, and its speed is not slow either—can you perceive it? You cannot. What do you think you perceive that is real? If you stand in outer space and look, we are constantly spinning on the earth day and night, but can you feel that you are spinning? You say our heads are all pointing up—but if your head points up, then the people on the other side of the earth must have their heads pointing down. You say we can all have our heads pointing up; from each person's own perspective, our heads all point up, but from the other person's perspective, the other person's head points down. Can you imagine yourself standing on the earth with your head pointing down? You cannot imagine it. Then what exactly is real? What is reality?

So what you perceive and cognize through your senses is real to you, and you need not care whether the thing behind it is real or not. That is not important to you. Because for you, the simulated thing in front of you—recognized and accepted by your senses after being organized by your consciousness and your beliefs—is real. The reason is very simple: it is because of the sponsorship of your flesh. Because with the help of your physical body and your nervous system, you can never truly see the essence of that reality. What you see is always a camouflage of reality, a simulation of reality, a mental activity, a mental phenomenon formed after being filtered and organized by your ideas or beliefs. This is reality.

If we put it this way, are you beginning to feel a little fuzzy about what is real and what is reality? This is a very interesting topic.

Seth suddenly veered into this topic. Why did he veer into this topic? Because he was talking about schizophrenia—for a schizophrenic person, those conjured personalities are so real. Those conjured figures, fabricated personalities, saints, holy spirits, higher selves, sprites—to them they are so real that they simply do not believe what you say. Because for them, that is their reality. So why is it said that practitioners especially fear going off the deep end? Once you go off the deep end, you cannot get out. Why can you not get out? Because for you, that is reality. You believe that is reality, and you believe that what others tell you is false—because you are being manipulated precisely according to such a mental phenomenon. So you can understand why, since ancient times, practitioners have especially feared beginners being led astray. Because once you are led astray, it is very difficult to get out; all of your faculties have already tipped over into that illusory realm, and then you believe that illusory realm is real, and it is very hard to walk out on your own. This is the crux of the matter.

At 9:29, Seth paused for another minute, and said:

Devils and demons have no objective existence.

He emphasized again: there is no such thing as devils, no such thing as demons.

Again, they always represent portions of mankind's own psychological reality, portions that to some degree he has not assimilated. And evil is a schizophrenic expression, projected outward from himself.

There are no devils, no demons; those are all certain portions of the deepest psychological reality within the human heart—the devils in his heart, the demons in his heart—those portions of his own inner self. He projects them outward, and then does not want to take responsibility for them, so he pushes the responsibility outside: as if devils outside, demons outside, are doing bad things. Then he will say, "I was controlled by the devil," "I was controlled by a demon," "I could not help myself."

It seems that he need not be responsible for behavior that he considers depraved or cruel.

Note that it is "he believes" -- because he believes these are things done by devils and demons, so he believes these things are depraved and cruel. He does not admit that this is part of his own humanity, and does not dare take responsibility for it. So he turns it into devils and demons, and by imagining the existence of other forces -- the existence of demonic forces, of dark forces -- he isolates himself from that responsibility. He removes himself from it: it is not my fault; if I did something bad, it was because a devil possessed me, because I was controlled by dark forces; I am a good person, I was just controlled by a devil. Why? Because in this way he can clean himself of it, and isolate himself from responsibility.

On an individual basis, schizophrenia fulfills those cultural patterns.

On the basis of each individual person, schizophrenia fulfills those cultural patterns. What is meant by cultural patterns? In a culture there are all kinds of typical personalities, typical figures, typical individuals, and he perfects them all, intensifies them, and expresses them in a dramatized, exaggerated way.

The contrast between the superior self, the idealized self, and the inferior self may vary, for example, and may be quite clear or somewhat blurred.

When we speak of the word culture, it contains many basic attributes. First, a culture must have a sufficiently long time; if it is too short, it is not enough to form a culture. Second, it must have a certain range of influence, a certain region; for example, Chinese culture has a vast regional scope. Another key point is that the population must be large. And cultural patterns refer to those things in a culture that are invisible, indescribable, and intangible -- for example, at a glance you can tell someone is Chinese, or at a glance you can tell someone is European, American, or French. This kind of cultural imprint we can also call "cultural genes." Sometimes this pattern is very obvious, and sometimes it is hidden: eating dumplings, setting off firecrackers, and celebrating the New Year are very obvious cultural imprints; but when someone does not eat dumplings, does not set off firecrackers, and does not wear Tang-style clothing, can others still tell that he is Chinese? That is the hidden pattern of culture.

And one key pattern here is how the ethnic group to which this culture belongs views its strongest self, its lowest self, and its most idealized self. For example, how do we view our ancestors, our national heroes, the people at the very bottom of society, or those traitors, those people guilty of monstrous crimes -- for example, Qin Hui. No matter how much you deny it, even if you expel him from the nationality, you cannot deny that he was once a Chinese person. When you say "Chinese people," there are those who stand on the highest moral ground, and there are also those who are very lowly, very evil, and have done many bad things -- are they all Chinese people? Which one do you say represents Chinese people? How you treat these different people when you face them reveals the hidden things in your cultural pattern.

Seth extends this viewpoint from the individual -- a personality has his ideal personality, the best part he imagines, and also the evil, most filthy part of his personality that he is unwilling to admit and unwilling to take responsibility for. But whether he admits it or not, this is all part of his personality. We all know that a correct attitude is to fully accept and acknowledge all of these, but most people cannot accept this -- they can only accept the good part of themselves, and cannot accept the bad part. Seth extends this idea to the level of cultural patterns, and the same principle applies. So in this world we have saints, and we have devils, and we have hell, and we have heaven -- these are all attributes of our culture. When Seth says "the contrast between the superior self, the idealized self, and the inferior self may vary," he means to extend this from the individual to society, ethnicity, and nation.

In many such instances, there will also be at least a period of intensely mixed, and perhaps chaotic, creative activity.

People all have a self-judgment -- most will feel they are quite good, but sometimes there is also a self-perception of "I am at the bottom of society" or "I am at the top of society." Under the conflict of cultural patterns, in many historical periods these things are mixed together: the most excellent and the lowest are mixed together, and the whole society presents a mixed phenomenon. Most periods are stable, but in some periods they are mixed, and at those times there will be chaotic creative activity. In the midst of it, the person tries to recognize these different elements --

Just as mankind itself has many times attempted to creatively, and sometimes chaotically, create its own religions.

This is what he means. Let me give you an example so you understand: take Hitler, for instance. In his cognition, he once believed he was the most superior self -- he wanted to realize the progress of human civilization and optimize the human race, and he believed he was the person who would change the world. But in the later period he also knew he had committed monstrous crimes. Why did he commit suicide? Why did he not dare to accept trial? Because he understood that what he had done was extremely evil. He was entangled and unable to reconcile the most superior self, the most evil self, and the ideal self. Was Hitler actually schizophrenic? There are many opinions; we need not concern ourselves with that. I just use this example to illustrate many such situations. It was the same throughout historical dynasties -- take Zhu Yuanzhang. Was he the excellent, ideal self? He overthrew the Yuan dynasty, which was regarded as invincible and impossible to defeat. The Yuan dynasty was very powerful back then, directly occupying more than half of Europe, and the Mongol Golden Horde was established right next to Moscow⁵. But was Genghis Khan a hero? He also did many despicable things, almost always slaughtering entire cities -- when he arrived at a place, he would kill everyone in the city⁶, kill all the men, send the women into military service, set the city on fire, and leave. If you have been to those Central Asian countries, going out from Xinjiang in China and traveling through Central Asia, passing through Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and on toward Iran, you will find that many cities are entirely...

History does go in reverse

The example of Zhu Yuanzhang can be continued. With his identity as a beggar, by his own strength he overthrew the Yuan dynasty, reunified the land of China, and restored Han rule. Would you say he was formidable? He was formidable. But from an objective perspective, the Ming dynasty was also one of the most advanced in Chinese history, yet in its later period it became the most closed and least enterprising dynasty. At that time, not even a single plank was allowed to go to sea⁷. The law issued by the Ming dynasty was that no transactions with foreign countries were permitted. If ships were not even allowed to go to sea, how could there be trade?

So every person has his own moments of glory, and every person has within his personality the ideal self, the superior self, and the inferior self. A nation, or humanity as a whole, is the same -- just like an individual, humanity also has this kind of developmental process.

So Seth says that humanity also sometimes chaotically creates its own religions. Christianity and all kinds of religions came about this way. Why does he say "chaotically create"? Because they were not created well -- they brought out all these opposing things, angels and devils and so on.

Here you can have anything from submissive nonsense to the most splendid creative products.

In this process, humanity has had its darkest moments. Do not think that human development is as you imagine it, moving from a low point steadily toward the light, just as we have always believed that history is like a train moving forward that never goes in reverse -- that is where you are wrong. History often goes in reverse. Whether in the East or the West, in any region or period, whether viewed on a large scale or a small scale, there are such times. So Seth says humanity has had the most submissive nonsense, times of turning right and wrong, black and white upside down; and it has also had the most splendid creations, humanity's moments of glory, in both spiritual creation and material creation. Anything between the worst and the best is created by different personalities.

Schizophrenia: the inability to reconcile the extremely good and the extremely bad

But in the schizophrenic framework, the product will be short-lived and experienced in a condensed fashion, usually outside the framework of day-to-day life.

For schizophrenic people it is different. The creation of schizophrenia is unstable; it is outside everyday life, often stepping deep one moment and shallow the next, switching between different personalities. One moment he is high above everything, the next moment he is unbearably lowly; one moment he is All That Is, the next moment he feels as lowly as an elementary school student learning from the beginning. So in this process he is unstable and uncertain, only briefly and in a condensed way experiencing things outside everyday life.

Seth then mixes religion and the individual together and says:

The figure of Christ is often used, because he is so perfect, representing the all-knowing son of God, to exaggerate the self.

In individual schizophrenia, there are often people who say they are Christ on earth, the second coming of Christ, linking themselves to Christ. Why are these schizophrenic people willing to link themselves to Christ? Because Christ perfectly represents a son of God, an all-knowing son of God -- using this way to exaggerate themselves. There is another characteristic: Christ was crucified precisely because of his exalted status; he is a combination of martyr figures. You know the Passion of Jesus -- he carried his own cross to the execution ground and was nailed to the cross, which was extremely lowly. Why was he crucified? Because he declared himself the Son of God, the Son of God. So why are these schizophrenics especially willing to use Christ to express something? They feel they are like Christ, because they accidentally exposed their identity as the Son of God, and therefore were not tolerated or accepted by real society, and were often caught and locked up in mental hospitals, given injections, electric shocks, beaten, abused, misunderstood by their families, and misunderstood by everyone around them. Then they carry a faint sense of tragic heroism and tragic romanticism: it does not matter if I am not understood; after all, I am the Son of God -- look, Jesus was nailed to the cross.

The typical figure of Christ precisely represents the exaggerated and idealized version of the inner self that the individual feels he cannot achieve. The inner self is very powerful, and should be the Son of God, originally complete and sufficient, but in real life he cannot actualize it; the idealization cannot be fully expressed, and he will still be humiliated, punished, and abused. He feels he is nailed to death by his own abilities -- Christ felt that he was crucified because his abilities were too strong, because of the noble bloodline of his divine identity. Schizophrenics are the same.

On other occasions, he may receive messages from devils or demons. This schizophrenic person, one moment feels he is Jesus, and the next moment feels that devils and demons are sending him messages. The devil represents this person's feelings about his own physical self -- he feels his physical body is like a devil: unable to resist temptation, driven by desire, and compared with the idealized image, it looks so evil. If you imagine yourself as the Son of God, then this physical body of yours really is evil enough -- you still have many desires, craving beauty, fine food, beautiful scenery, and money, and you cannot control them even if you want to. Is that not very evil? So you attribute your anger toward the body's desires, and this lowly perception, to the devil. It is very contradictory, very contradictory with your spiritual pursuits.

Again, there may be all kinds of different behavior.

Seth says I am only speaking in general terms. In fact, in specific individuals, the manifestations of schizophrenia are endlessly varied, but generally the person is unable to reconcile the extremely good self and the extremely lowly self.

Not accepting the standardized version of reality

Such people, however, in their own way refuse to accept the standardized version of reality.

They cannot accept the standard version of reality recognized by the general public. Although they are also uncertain about what they perceive, unable to distinguish which is more real, reality or illusion, regardless of whether their own cognition is certain or not, they simply do not accept the general public's definition of reality, and do not approve of this standard.

Their psychological patterns, then, do follow those cultural, religious, scientific, or whatever patterns, but they attempt to use the pattern in their own personal way.

He does not believe the existing general public's definition of reality, but instead follows, according to his own psychological patterns, those cultural, religious, scientific, or other kinds of magical viewpoints he has chosen -- alien theories and so on. Some people insist they came from outer space, some believe they are star seeds, some believe they are members of the Galactic Federation, and this time they came to Earth with an important mission, to rescue humanity -- humanity is about to be destroyed, and they are needed to transmit information and to save it. This is also a pattern. There are many other patterns: some people feel they are someone left over from ancient times, or they are the reincarnation of someone -- I have even met many people who say they are the reincarnation of Laozi, still alive now, cultivating on a mountain, with all the details, helping the government accomplish great deeds, and this must be kept secret. You may find it ridiculous, but for him, within that pattern it is not ridiculous; he feels all of it is real. In his world, because he follows the pattern he himself has identified -- a cultural pattern, a religious pattern, a scientific pattern, an alien civilization pattern, or a total combination of these patterns -- he does not accept the reality pattern unanimously recognized by the public, and only acknowledges his own.

The process of assembling the personality

They are actually in the process of putting their own personalities together.

Those of us ordinary people who do not show schizophrenic phenomena have already been assembled -- we can accept ourselves, accept the lowly self, and also accept the noble self. In worldly terms, we can endure suffering and also enjoy blessings. Some people can only enjoy blessings and cannot endure suffering; some people can endure suffering but cannot enjoy blessings -- as soon as they enjoy blessings, they become at a loss. So those of us who are relatively normal can adapt after a period of time, and can go up and down. When Zhu Yuanzhang was a beggar, he could not fill his stomach and was beaten and cursed, and in the end he could also become emperor -- would you say he was someone who could best endure suffering and also enjoy blessings? Of course. He was assembled very well, so he did not become schizophrenic.

Schizophrenic people are those who, in the process of assembling, did not assemble well and went astray. That is all. Do not regard it as terribly serious, and even more, do not follow their line of thinking -- things like I have been possessed, I am together with spirits, I am connected with my higher self, I have been possessed by a devil. Do not be drawn into any of these viewpoints. Of course, in order to work with a case, you can follow their points to find the characteristics of their personality, to know where the root of the illness and the cause of the illness lie, to know where the suppressed part is, and where the personal belief system has gone wrong -- these are things you can discern. But in your own mind you must understand that all of this is his own dramatized, exaggerated performance or personification. He does not feel that it is, but you must look at it from this angle.

These people, practically speaking, still remain after most people have settled into one official version or another, and hence their behavior provides glimpses of the ever-changing compromises between the multitudinous formative components of the human personality.

The frightening part is not the process of personality formation -- we all have this process, and it is very normal -- but rather that one personality of these people has already become fixed, and then suddenly mutates, and another personality emerges, and he has to integrate that new one. So we see very strange things: clearly a person was one way, and suddenly a new one emerges. This is the abnormality we find very strange -- after one official version has been established, a new personality emerges and must be integrated into the original personality, but it is not integrated well, so between the new personality and the old personality there will be transmission of information, telepathy, messages, automatic writing, and so on.

Seth says that through their behavior, you can glimpse the ever-changing compromises between the multitudinous formative components of the human personality -- how these two different personalities compromise, and finally identify with each other to form one personality. Simply put, it is how Zhu Yuanzhang identified himself as both a beggar and someone who rose to become emperor. In his cognition, did he feel he was a beggar or an emperor? From beggar to emperor? Both a beggar and an emperor? Or was he born an emperor, and only became a beggar at the beginning? From Zhu Yuanzhang's perspective, you can see the change of one personality: the brothers who had exchanged their lives with him helped him conquer the world, and after he sat on the throne, how did he then give them cup after cup of poisoned wine to kill them; yet he was also extremely diligent -- one of the most diligent emperors in Chinese history, reviewing memorials in every detail, no matter how small. How is such a personality integrated?

After we have studied this Seth material, when we look at a person again, we should no longer see only one side of his personality as before, but instead see the diversity of his personality. When you look at Yang Guifei, Wu Zetian, and those historical figures, you will see them more fully, and you will be able to see the subtlety and refinement of the reconciliation and compromise between their personalities, and you will smile knowingly. If you use this angle to look at history, or to observe the people around you in reality, you will have insights completely different from others. When you can look at a person from the perspective of multiple personalities, think about what the result will be when you interact with this person?

The truth about telepathy and psychic abilities

Conversely, the greater number of instances of telepathy or clairvoyance claimed to occur in schizophrenic situations are attempts on the part of the individual to prove to himself that the idealized qualities of omnipotence or power are indeed readily available.

Many people claim they communicate psychically with someone, that they have telepathic messages, that they can see things with clairvoyance. The vast majority of such claims are attempts to prove to themselves or to others: "Look, I have superpowers." They even tell others that such superpowers are readily available -- no cultivation needed, no supernatural powers needed; overnight they communicate with their higher self, overnight they communicate with the Jade Emperor.

This is, of course, to compensate for a basic sense of powerlessness in more ordinary endeavors.

In ordinary life he is an ordinary person, and what he can do to change the world or change society is limited, so the sense of powerlessness is very strong, and therefore he must conjure up this kind of superpower to balance it.

In certain cases, however, there are clear and quite genuine instances of telepathy and clairvoyance.

We cannot dismiss everything with one stroke; there really are some people who genuinely have this ability: they really can have telepathy, really can have clairvoyance, see things outside their field of vision, have vivid out-of-body experiences, go anywhere, and travel beyond the realm of accepted reality to other realities. All of this can be real.

These are often complicated, however, because the individual's pattern of beliefs is itself characterized by such an exaggerated mixture.

In individual cases it is more complicated, because the individual's pattern of beliefs is itself mixed together, and it is an exaggerated mixture -- you can even fuse together completely contradictory or opposing beliefs. So these episodes are often accompanied by ghostly figures from religion or mythology, all kinds of gods and ghosts. These people may feel they are forced to have such experiences -- it is not what they wanted; it is those beings that came to them, possession by immortals, possession by devils, possession by unclean things, possession by evil spirits; they are passive. They are unwilling to take responsibility for this behavior, and clean themselves of it: "This is not me; it is possession by an evil spirit. The devil came, and I could not help it; he entered my body."

Is that really the case? No. It is that he himself does not want to take responsibility. That is all there is to it.

In your terms of time, man has been projecting his own unassimilated psychological components of personality outward.

According to the chronological order of human time, we project outward the parts of ourselves that we have not assimilated. What is assimilated is considered to be oneself; what is not assimilated is considered to be outside. If a personality can be assimilated very well, you consider it to be you -- "This is what I did; I should have done this." For the parts that cannot be assimilated, if you did that thing, you will say, "This was not done by me; I do not know how I did it; perhaps I was possessed by an evil spirit." So the parts that cannot be accepted and cannot be assimilated are projected outward by the person, who says someone else made him do it.

In much earlier times, he did this using all kinds of different images -- personifications, male and female gods, devils or demons, good and bad spirits.

In early human times, those parts that could not be assimilated were presented in all kinds of different images -- personifications, male and female gods, devils, evil spirits -- and all were blamed on these figures.

Before the gods of Rome were fully personified, there were numberless good and evil beings, with all gradations between them.

The numerous and complex gods of Greek and Roman mythology, of all levels, good and bad, great gods and small gods, precisely represent the brilliance and release of the human soul, that is, the diversity of the human soul. Because people did not admit that those were parts of their own personality, they projected them outward as all kinds of deities. Through those mythological stories you can see: however many kinds of gods and however many types of gods there are in mythology, that is how many facets of the personality's soul have been projected outward.

And they also represented those felt but unknown glimpses of his own reality.

Those magical experiences felt in reality but not known what they were -- dreams, out-of-body experiences, those magical feelings -- he did not know what they were, so he attributed them all to deities, to gods and ghosts and strange things. This is something people, in one way or with a certain determination, wanted to explore; they first gave it the names of gods, ghosts, spirits, and elves, and then tried to explore it.

All of these forces were understood by all, and had roles to play in the human world.

Those gods, ghosts, spirits, and elves each played the role of a force in the development of human society. Some represented natural forces -- natural forces are sometimes beneficial and sometimes not:

Storm gods, for example, might be quite welcome in times of drought; while if they overly satisfied their people, then their power might be quite feared.

Like the dragon. In ancient China there were Dragon King temples everywhere, generally in the arid northern regions. To pray for rain, people prayed to the Dragon King, performing rituals to ask the Dragon King to send rain. The Dragon King sending rain is a good thing, but if he sends too much, does it not become a flood disaster? If the Dragon King suddenly becomes kind-hearted and gives you a little more, and it rains for ten days and ten nights, then it is over. So this Dragon King cannot be too good to people.

What does this story illustrate? The gods we humans have created are actually all projections of various fragments of the human personality -- the parts that can be accepted or cannot be accepted, projected outward. But they also played a role in human civilization and progress. For example, some are incarnations of natural forces -- in the West there is Thor, the thunder god, holding a hammer; in China there is also a thunder god, one holding a hammer and one holding something else, the Goddess of Lightning and the God of Thunder, one releasing lightning and one striking thunder. That is them controlling rain and lightning.

There was no polarized abyss between the good gods and the bad gods.

No god is absolutely good or absolutely bad. The Dragon King -- would you say he is good or bad? If he gives too much water, he is bad; if he gives too little, he is good, but too little is also not good -- drought; and too much is also not good -- flood. So there is no such thing as good or not good.

The version of Jehovah and Christ God, in this Western religious version, brought about a direct conflict between the so-called forces of good and the so-called forces of evil.

Western society directly established a distinction between good and evil: the devil and God. By largely cutting away all the intermediary deities, it destroyed the subtle psychological interactions that occurred among them, and polarized man's view of his own inner psychological reality. In the later period, Christianity polarized the world very severely, directly dividing people into good people and bad people, God and the devil, angels and demons. This extreme polarization caused people to see the world in an extremely polarized way as well, just like children watching a movie always asking whether this person is a good guy or a bad guy.

There was no schizophrenia in pagan times

There was no schizophrenia in pagan times. There was no schizophrenia in that period.

The so-called pagan times were the period before Christianity had unified the world, when all kinds of religions and all kinds of gods bloomed everywhere and a hundred flowers blossomed. Why was there no schizophrenia then? Because the belief system of that era did not support the interpretation of this condition.

This does not mean that certain behavior that you would now call schizophrenic did not occur, but that generally speaking such behavior fit within the psychological picture of reality.

In that era, it is not that this kind of schizophrenic behavior did not exist; the behavior was exactly the same, but people did not consider it schizophrenia. Because that era was polytheistic and pantheistic, all kinds of strange personality behaviors could be accepted -- the gods were originally diverse, and there was no distinction between good and bad, only difference. So it was very normal for one person to display many different personalities, and people did not think it was anything. But in today's society it no longer works, because today's society directly labels things as good or bad. After polarization, the schizophrenic patient and the people around him, when looking at this phenomenon, are necessarily polarized. The person involved has a good, ideal self and a lowly self, and between these two he cannot assimilate or balance them, so schizophrenia appears. The people around him also view it with a polarized perspective. Why do you think he is schizophrenic? Because you see the extremely good and the extremely bad gathered in one person. But in the era of early mythology, was it not quite normal for the best and the worst to be gathered in one person? Just like the Dragon King -- when he is happy, he is a good god, and when he is unhappy, he is a bad god -- it depends on his mood. In that era, everyone could understand this, but now it no longer works, because it does not conform to the current psychological picture of reality.

That is because many of the behavior patterns connected with schizophrenia are distorted and debased remnants of behavior patterns.

We now label many behavior patterns as distorted, debased, and therefore regard them as illness, different from the normal. In the early animistic era, this problem did not exist.

Those behavior patterns are part of the human heritage, and they echo activities and abilities that once had precise social meaning and definite purpose.

Do not distinguish these behavior patterns in terms of good and bad. They are all part of the inheritance of human cultural patterns, and a manifestation of the diversity of the human personality. By present standards, they may seem incompatible with mainstream society; but from the broader perspective of human development, they are simply one expression of human diversity, and in the course of human development they once had their social significance. It is only because we now view them through the polarized lens of good and bad that they have become debased, vestigial, distorted, useless behavior patterns. But in a pluralistic society, such behavior patterns do have their social meaning. This is simply a difference of perspective: whether one looks from the long river of human history, or from the present social civilization.

These include the ability to identify with the forces of nature, to project outward a portion of one's own psychological reality, and then to view it again in a transformation of renewed vitality, a transformation that can indeed alter physical reality.

Some behavior patterns of schizophrenia involve projecting a part of one's own personality outward, turning it into certain spirits or certain deities, and endowing it with the forces of nature. Those dragon kings, devils, gods, and heavenly beings are actually formed by projecting outward certain parts of the human personality that one cannot identify with. For example, a schizophrenic says the thunder god has possessed him, that he now has the thunder god's ability, that he can bring lightning, bring rain, and alter the physical world. Does this ability exist? Humanity actually has this ability, but humanity does not identify with it, so it projects it outward and assigns it to some god.

In present society, this looks like a state of mental illness. But placed within the development of human history, it has meaning. It is indeed part of a certain human ability, only we do not identify with it. Ordinary people do not think they can summon wind and rain, but these people think they can. Can human beings actually summon wind and rain? Earlier we discussed what reality is. Reality is a psychological phenomenon. In your psychological world, you can summon wind and rain. In the world of reality, of course you can. But for ordinary people it is "impossible," because you believe it is impossible, and therefore it is impossible. And those people believe it is possible, so it can be real in their reality. In that particular period of development, this was useful, and it had its reason for existing.

The final step: reassimilation

The next natural step should have been the reassimilation of those portions of the self.

First project the power outward, assign it to a god, and say this god is very powerful; normally, the next stage should be to assimilate this god with oneself. If he can assimilate the god back into himself, can this person then summon wind and rain? Previously it was passive: the god was the god, he was himself, the god possessed him, but he did not feel that he himself had the ability to summon wind and rain. If he assimilates this personality back, then he has it.

Acknowledging their ancient origins and abilities, returning to them; hence they would form a new appearance and a new version of themselves.

He should be able to recover this natural power and control nature. But people treat these individuals as mentally ill and give them no such opportunity; they make no attempt to help them assimilate. If he feels he is a god and has divine power, and if within his world he can assimilate this ability well, then he can acknowledge their ancient origins and abilities, because in the origins of humanity, human beings and nature were one. Controlling nature is not at all miraculous, because they are one. Nature was born for humanity; they are in a state of mutual support, shared flourishing, and joint creation. Returning to these ancient abilities, humanity's appearance would change, and a new version would emerge. You would already be able to summon wind and rain and control nature; you would already have become a "god-man." Your appearance would change; your genes, DNA, and chromosomes would change; the body would grow taller and taller, not, as everyone imagines, that intelligent beings become smaller and smaller. No, they become larger and larger. Do not look at the little gray aliens and assume that is what humanity's future will look like.

It is as if human beings cannot understand their own potentials unless they project them outward into a godhead, where they can view them in isolation and purity, recognize what they are, and then accept them. Those potentials, they represent those potentials, as part of their own psychological reality.

Seth said all of this with great fervor. Let me give an analogy: you have the potential to summon wind and rain, but you think you do not, so you assign this "wind-and-rain-summoning personality" to a dragon king. The dragon king, of course, can summon wind and rain. From outside, from a pure perspective, you look at the dragon king and find it perfectly normal. If you can go one step further and recognize that this dragon king is merely a projection of one part of your own personality, and can accept it, then all the gods in this world are projections of different human personalities. Whether it is God, or Erlang Shen, or thousands upon thousands of gods, all of them are. If you can assimilate them one by one and accept them as parts of your own personality, then you possess their potentials. If you believe that dragon is you, then you can summon wind and rain. It is that simple a principle.

Why did Seth say all of this with such fervor? He wants us to see, through the matter of schizophrenia, the potentials of humanity, and how to use those potentials. And then he stopped there and did not go further. But does this passage tell us a method for activating our own potentials? Why did he not continue? If you continue, there will be trouble. You cannot have all of humanity first become schizophrenic and then activate their potentials. What if the potentials are not activated, and everyone becomes schizophrenic? So Seth did not say it. Because this is a natural process. You cannot say that a person who is clearly not schizophrenic must be made schizophrenic. You cannot make them that way anyway. People who are not schizophrenic have already assimilated their personalities very well; no matter how you try, their personalities remain whole.

So there is a saying now: "Genius on the left, madman on the right." These mental patients and geniuses are often the same; in some respects they are even more powerful than geniuses. It is only a question of whether these so-called madmen can discover their own potentials and assimilate this part well. If they can, then they are people even more powerful than geniuses.

But as a species, as a human species, you did not take that final step, in accepting them.

Humanity did not take this step. At this point, humanity instead treated its own kind as mental patients and sent them to mental hospitals for treatment. What should humanity have done? Not treat them, but guide these schizophrenic individuals to assimilate back, accept back, and acknowledge back the split-off parts of their personalities. No, you humans did not take this step. You stopped before it: you threw out the parts of the personality you could not identify with, projected them into godheads, and then observed them, saying this is a god, only a god can do this, I cannot.

On the concept of the devil

Your concept of the devil represents the same kind of process.

As with deities, so with devils. It is just that it represents your concepts of evil, of darkness, or of the abilities you fear.

They represent components of your own potentials.

Those whom you call bad, monstrously evil, murderous without blinking, are also your potentials. You must not deny this: "How could we humans do such things? It must be demonic possession." No. Human beings can also do these bad things. This is also a human potential.

I am not speaking of the possibility of evil, but man must understand that he is responsible for his actions, whether those actions are called good or evil.

Seth says, when I speak of these evil parts, these demonic parts, I am not saying that people must do bad things. Because people all have the ability to do bad things, that is not what he means. What he wants to say is this: people must take responsibility for their own actions, and dare to do and dare to accept. Acknowledge what you have done, whether it is considered good or bad, with complete openness. However enormous the matter, if you did it, you did it. To acknowledge it openly is the most important point.

You form your own reality. The existence of human evil is due to its misunderstanding of its own ideals, due to the gulf that seems to exist between the ideal and the actual. In other words, evil behavior is the result of ignorance and misunderstanding. There is no force called evil.

This passage is very important. Seth once again defines evil: the existence of what humans consider evil is a misunderstanding of their own ideals. In the face of the enormous gulf between ideal and reality, they adopted methods that were ignorant, misunderstood, overly extreme, or inappropriate. We have already discussed this point very clearly in the final part of The Nature of Personal Reality, "Be a practicing idealist." No behavior is inherently evil. Human beings can be ignorant, and can misunderstand. Under ignorance and misunderstanding, people believe they are moving toward their ideals. Hitler believed he was moving toward his ideal. Many regressive events in history were, in the understanding of those involved, struggles for their ideals. So they are the result of ignorance and misunderstanding. There is no force that is inherently evil. In other words, if you dig to the root of their hearts, they are also oriented toward the good; they are striving for their own ideals, only using the wrong methods, not deliberately intending to do evil. Seth reiterated this point once more. For many people, this may be the first time they have heard this concept.

Closing

Finally, Seth told Ruburt to relax, and encouraged him to rely on his body. The soreness in his body, while he was undergoing so many changes, those changes were all beneficial. Then he paused, looked at me with humor, and said, "Good night to you all."

At the beginning of this session, Ruburt's body felt as though it was undergoing intentional changes, but there was also soreness. Seth said this was normal. At 10:26, he told Jane the session was excellent. I really hoped he would continue with that material, because it seemed Seth was still a long way from discussing the subject of reincarnation. I very much hoped Seth would discuss the topic of reincarnation.

The content of this session is actually very important. Starting from schizophrenia as a human social phenomenon, he discussed such far-reaching topics: among them, what the nature of reality is, and also the important role that personality assimilation in schizophrenia plays in activating human potentials. Yet we humans did not complete this process; we missed the final step, which is accepting that part of ourselves. After reading this session, I think many people will have deep reflections. I hope this session can be of help to those who see it, and that this idea can be passed on, so that more people come to recognize this point. This is very important for the development of our entire human civilization.

注释与核实

1. Source: YouVersion "Matthew 12:22-37" (https://www.bible.com/zh-CN/bible/compare/MAT.12.22-37) ↩

2. Source: Pope Paul VI "Udienza generale: 'Liberaci dal male'" 1972 (https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1972/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19721115.html) ↩

3. Source: Yaron Oz/CERN Courier "Superstrings, black holes and gauge theories" (https://cern-courier.web.cern.ch/a/superstrings-black-holes-and-gauge-theories/) ↩

4. Source: NIST "CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants" 2018 (https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/JPCRD2018CODATA.pdf) ↩

5. This claim could not be verified. ↩

6. This claim could not be verified. ↩

7. According to Mike's original words, it was "not even a single plank may go to sea"; upon verification, it should be "The common record of the Ming maritime ban is 'At first, the Ming founder set the rule that not a single plank may enter the sea,' not 'not even a single plank may go to sea.'" (Source: Zhang Tingyu et al., "History of Ming, Volume 205, Biography of Zhu Wan," https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hans/%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%B2/%E5%8D%B7205) ↩