Mike's commentary · The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Chapter 5

The "Introduction" and "Key Points" for this chapter were summarized by an AI editor based on the main text below; they are not words spoken by Mike during his lectures. The main text comes from Mike's commentary, and the blockquotes are Seth's original words (the portions Mike read aloud).

Guide

This chapter centers on "the mechanism of experience": it explains that feelings, beliefs, and intentions precede concrete events, that the physical world is the concretization of subjective reality, and that focus determines experience. Seth guides readers to look at the world from the inside out, pointing out that the filters of religion and science cause people to overlook inner creativity, that modern people face a loss of meaning and a distrust of the self, and using examples such as finding a partner, picking up a newspaper, and the death of a young person to suggest changing focus and taking responsibility for creation.

Key Points of This Chapter

• Feelings, beliefs, and intentions precede concrete events; outer events are the materialization of inner subjective reality.
• The focus of attention determines a person's interpretation and experience of events.
• Religion and the Darwinian and Freudian scientific viewpoints form different filters, making it difficult for people to see the mechanism of experience.
• Distrusting the private self leads to weakness, attempts to control the environment, and seeking external authority.
• Beliefs organize psychic events and attract concrete events consistent with them; changing experience begins with changing beliefs and focus.

Main Text

Today, let's continue introducing Seth's book The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events¹, Chapter 5, "The Mechanics of Experience." We are now doing an interpretation of the first section of Chapter 5, which is Session 830 of the book. This session began on Monday, March 27, 1978, at 9:15 p.m.

Right at the start, Seth says, we are beginning a new chapter, and the title of this chapter is "The Mechanics of Experience." Experience is all the experiencing in our ordinary lives, the things we go through. No matter what we go through, it is this kind of life experience in our physical reality, and all of it is called experience. In this chapter, he mainly discusses what the mechanics of experience really are, and what the essence of experience really is. In our ordinary lives, we experience all kinds of things, good and bad, joys and sorrows, anger and happiness. What is the mechanism behind all of these things?

Your world, and everything in it, exists first in the imagination.

This continues what was discussed in the last section of Chapter 4, which mainly talked about imagination and the importance of imagination, its importance to human development and human civilization. Your world and everything in it -- remember, everything -- exists first in the imagination.

Then he says:

You are taught to focus all of your attention upon concrete events. Therefore, those concrete practices represent reliable practice to you.

From childhood, we are taught that we should focus our attention on the events of this physical world, and not on imagined events. Therefore, those practices in the imagined world, to you -- not that they are not -- those concrete practices, they represent reliable practice to you. Because we have been educated this way since childhood, there is no way around it.

Thoughts, emotions, and beliefs then appear to be secondary. Or they become secondary, subjective, or one might say not quite real, and they seem only to give rise to a reaction to concrete material.

We say, "Oh, you are getting emotional," "You have some kind of feeling about something," "You are heartbroken now because of a breakup," "You are very happy now because of a promotion and a raise." You seem to be reacting to these things. You regard these thoughts, emotions, and beliefs as merely reactions to concrete things. In fact, that is not right.

Session 830

Let us use an example. You usually think that your feeling about an event is mainly just a reaction to that event. For instance, if you experience a car accident, then you can be very irritable and angry — this is the reaction that the car accident produces in you. You seldom consider that the feeling itself might be primary. You think that you first encounter an event, or that an event first happens, and then you react to that event and have a feeling — that is what is primary. You have never thought that you first had such a feeling, that you first experienced that feeling, and only then did such an event follow. And the fact is exactly this:

And that particular event, however, can be said to be a reaction to your emotion.

You should look at it in reverse — that event is precisely a reaction to your emotion. Because you have such an emotion to experience, it arranges such an event to let you experience this emotion, not the other way around.

The most important thing is your focus. It is largely responsible for your interpretation of any event.

Where is your focus, where is the focus of your consciousness. If you place your focus in the world of imagination, you think that you have such a feeling, and then you need an event to correspond with it, and you encounter such an event in your life. If you consider the problem this way, and your focus is placed here, then it is like this. If you think in reverse, if you think that an event happens in your life, and you have an emotion and a reaction to this event, and that is what is normal — then your focus is placed here, and this event is like this for you. But in fact, you are responsible for your interpretation of any event. In other words, the occurrence of any event in your life is something you should be responsible for, something you have arranged.

Speaking of this, I am reminded of an example I explained earlier. It was about a girl named Ding Hui in our group. One day she had an especially magical feeling, which fits very well with the content of this session. One morning she got up with a particularly irritable emotion. She herself analyzed it afterward: this emotion came from the past few days when she had been binge-watching a TV drama every day, chasing a series, and by the end she herself was a bit irritated. Where was her irritation? She felt as if she was doing nothing, wasting her life, wasting such a meaningful life — she had this kind of emotion. Then in the morning, an event happened that made her extremely angry, and she had a very strong emotional reaction. In the afternoon, after that emotion passed — because she had been studying Seth for over a year — she suddenly had a kind of perception and realization. She discovered that she had first had an emotion, and that event was something she grabbed to match this emotion, and the grabbing action and that grabbing feeling were so clear and strong that she could see it at a glance. But at the time she had not seen it. After having this awareness, she was especially excited and gave a detailed description in the group. When she reflected on it later, she could clearly see: she first had the emotion, and that event, when she calmly looked back and analyzed it, was itself neither good nor bad, and should not have caused her such a strong emotion. If it had been at another time, or in a better mood, this event might have been nothing at all. But at that time, under that emotion, that event triggered the eruption of her emotion. And the most magical thing she discovered was this: the emotion came first, the event came later, and the event was performing in cooperation with her emotion.

All right, Seth says, let us do an exercise. What exercise?

Imagine that your thoughts, your emotions, your mental images, and your fantasies (including the subjective world of fantasy), are the most solid reality. As bedrock reality.

A mental image is a picture imagined in your mind. Including your thoughts and emotions, the scenes of the pictures in your mind, and your fantasies — all of these are called your subjective world. Now take everything you are thinking in your mind and regard it all as the most solid reality. It is called bedrock reality — that is, the bottom layer of reality, the most fundamental part of reality, the most core reality. What is reality? Reality is fact, it is actuality, it is the most basic fact. Then:

It leaks out through the specific events of that person.

This basic fact is revealed through the specific events we experience in life. For example, your child does not do his homework, you were criticized by your boss today, and so on — these are all specific events. It leaks out through those, that is, it is revealed. In other words, without these specific events, you cannot see your bedrock reality. Your bedrock reality is the foundation of events.

We can put it another way, in another phrasing: look at the world from the inside out. You must learn to look at the world from the inside out, not from the outside in.

Imagine that your concrete experience is the materialization of your own subjective phenomena.

Imagine that every event and every person you encounter in your life, in our physical world, is the materialization of your own subjective reality. Remember, it is your own subjective reality. What is subjective reality? It is what you think in your mind — emotions, feelings, the pictures in your mind, the things you fantasize — all of these are subjective reality. In other words, you must imagine, and make yourself believe, this one thing: every event in your life is an external materialization of your subjective world, of the world in your mind.

Then forget all you have learned about reaction and stimulus.

Forget this thing. Forget what? Forget the idea that "it is the reactions and stimuli caused by external events through our senses that bring about our feelings." Have we not all learned it this way? We were taught this from childhood. For example, we see something, we feel fire, we feel warmth. We think it is external events that bring us a kind of perception. Usually you must first forget this.

And ignore everything you believe.

Take everything you currently believe and turn it upside down. The purpose of this exercise is to make you turn it upside down. Just as the Diamond Sutra² says, "all are inverted dreams and illusions" — now you are made to invert your dreams and illusions. And regard your thoughts as real — your current thoughts are real, while those things in the external material world are all concrete manifestations, forms of expression, that cooperate with your thoughts. Your thoughts are the most real.

Try to view normal concrete events as the solid, concrete reactions of your own emotions and beliefs in time and space.

You must look at it in reverse: regard every event you encounter in life as a kind of collision, a kind of reaction, a kind of feedback of your emotions and thoughts in the material world. This is completely reversed from what we used to think. We used to think that our thoughts and our feelings are reactions produced after the events of the material world come into contact with us; our thoughts and emotions are reactions to the material world. Now it asks you to turn it all upside down, so that the world of our life becomes, instead, the reaction of your thoughts and your emotions in the material world.

Let me say it more clearly. You have an invisible inner world, and this inner world is the real one. Remember, you have an invisible inner world, right there in your mind, right there in your thoughts, and this world is the real one. Every event that happens in this material world you live in is merely a reaction of this inner world in your mind, in your thoughts, upon the outer world. These events are reactions of your thoughts, reactions of your beliefs. Whatever beliefs you hold, you will encounter whatever events. If you hold one kind of belief, every event you encounter in life is a reaction to this belief system; if you hold an opposite belief system, then in your life you will encounter a series of events opposite to and corresponding with your original belief system, to cooperate with such a belief system of yours.

Let us put it simply and collectively — all the events of your material world are a reaction of your inner belief system. Whether you call it projection, or reaction, or whatever you call it — you first have the inner belief system, and then the outer world comes to cooperate with it. This makes you thoroughly understand why Seth has always emphasized that "beliefs create reality." This creative process of his — whether you understand it as creation, or as manifestation, or as what psychological laws call attraction — whether you call it creation, reflection, attraction, or projection, whatever you call it is fine. From any angle it is correct; it is just a different way of saying it. At its most basic, it is actually a kind of reaction — a concrete reaction of the material world. Think about it: your thoughts are invisible, and they need a material reaction to correspond with them, so the events you encounter in life are the material reactions of these thoughts.

Let me be more specific, and give another example. For instance, when you were a teenager, you wanted to experience love, in a dazed and ignorant way. At that time you were dazed and ignorant about everything concerning love. But in your heart, for whatever reason — we do not care how the three-dimensional world explains it, hormones or whatever — anyway, you wanted to experience love. And at this time, you first had a belief in your heart, first had a thought, and you had already begun to fantasize: you were in love with some boy or girl in your class, or someone you knew around you, or someone from a TV drama or a novel. And this process of love and being in love definitely first happened in your mind, whether you admit it or not. Then in real life, a certain boy or girl who made your heart flutter would appear, and then your heart would pound. And before this process, you had already had such a love experience in your mind — maybe the person was not this person, but that event or that feeling was definitely right. Using such an example to explain it to you, you can understand what he means here.

There are many other concrete examples, but let us not analyze them one by one; every analysis is like this. For example, if you encounter a car accident, it is definitely because you were very irritable. You were irritable in your heart, and as a result an accident happened, which made you even more irritable — irritability plus irritability. Why? Because during that period you wanted to experience the feeling of irritability. You say no one would want to experience this thing, but if you dig deeply you will know — today we are not discussing the issue of digging into your beliefs. In The Nature of Personal Reality³, there are specific methods and steps teaching you how to dig into the core of your beliefs; today we will not talk about that.

Indeed, it is truly your subjective world that causes your concrete experience.

You must remember this sentence. Because it is indeed your subjective world that causes your concrete experience. This "causes" that he speaks of is exactly what the later law of attraction calls attraction, resonance, calibration, and so on — all of it means this. Whatever concrete experience you want to cause, whatever concrete experience you want, then you must go look for it in your subjective world. Once it is constructed in the subjective world, you will concretely experience it in your life.

When naming this chapter, Seth said, I used the word "mechanism" — the mechanism of experience, the mechanism of our life experience. What does the word "mechanism" imply internally? It implies an inner, smooth, technological operation. We speak of this mechanism, reaction mechanisms, various human mechanisms, social mechanisms. It assumes by default that there is a set of operating laws.

Although the world is not a machine, its inner workings cannot be simulated by any technology. Nevertheless, this still involves a natural mechanism, in which all the dimensions within consciousness emerge to form a materialized, consistent physical existence.

He says this world is not a machine, because its inner workings cannot be simulated by any technology. But it does have some inner natural mechanisms — that is, the laws by which things operate. This mechanism can also be called a law or regularity of the world. All the dimensions within all of our consciousness emerge to form a materialized, front-to-back consistent physical existence. This sentence is extremely incisive. If you wanted to expand it, this one sentence could be written into an entire article, but we will not expand it. However, you must read this sentence repeatedly.

You see, this world has such natural mechanisms. Within this mechanism, all that is within consciousness — remember, all that is within consciousness — this includes human consciousness, the consciousness of things, the consciousness of plants, the consciousness of living beings, the consciousness of atoms, the consciousness of molecules. The dimensions within all consciousness — dimensions are also called levels, and can also be called worlds. These worlds within consciousness — including human consciousness, animal consciousness, minerals, molecules and atoms, the consciousness of all things — within their consciousness there is a subjective world. This subjective world within consciousness will emerge. To emerge means to materialize; in our three-dimensional world it can materialize, and then form one by one concrete, front-to-back consistent, and logically self-consistent physical existences. Materialization is not difficult; the key is that it must be consistent front to back, and logically self-consistent — this is very subtle.

This will be introduced specifically in Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, and it is very hard to describe clearly in language. It is that while satisfying the individual needs of each consciousness, it can also satisfy a common need of all consciousnesses. Only when these conditions are all satisfied does this world come into being. The consciousness of the flower is taken care of, the consciousness of the soil is taken care of, the consciousness of the air is taken care of, oxygen atoms, hydrogen atoms, oxygen molecules, hydrogen molecules, everything in nature, including the consciousness of every person, is taken care of, and they are all very harmonious, self-consistent, and front-to-back consistent with one another. When all these conditions are satisfied, this world is born. The design within it, or such ingenuity, is beyond the scope of what human consciousness can understand — why? Because human consciousness is also one of them; your consciousness is also among them.

Yesterday I happened to be reading a book called Reinventing Organizations⁴, and it mentioned a famous quote by Einstein⁵. He said that if you want to understand something, you must be above that consciousness to understand it; you cannot use a consciousness at the same level as that thing to truly understand it — I forget the exact wording, but that is the meaning.

Again, your interpretation of identity teaches you to focus your perceptions in such a way that you cannot follow the consciousness threads that connect you with all portions of nature.

Because from childhood you have had a constraint of identity, a limitation — you know who you are, you are a boy, you are a girl, what grade you are in, and your family has educated you this way since childhood — that sense of identity makes you focus your attention on things related to you. You cannot see the network of consciousness interconnecting all things in nature. He calls them "consciousness threads," that is, the network of consciousness. These molecules, cells, atoms, tissues, animals, plants, minerals, this earth — the consciousness of all these things is tightly interconnected, like a web of consciousness.

In such terms, the world is like an exotic, multidimensional plant growing in space and time.

To put it another way: your current material world — not just the material world, but all kinds of worlds, including all of our worlds — is like an exotic, multidimensional plant growing in space and time. It is itself multidimensional, transcending space and time, but it grows within our three-dimensional world. Then:

Every thought, every dream, every imagined encounter, every hope, every fear, grows and blooms naturally. A plant of incredible variety, never the same for an instant, in which every smallest root, stem, leaf, and flower has a part to play, and is connected with the whole.

How magical. It depicts the process of a multidimensional plant growing within a three-dimensional world. We will not expand on this; you can open up the space of your imagination. A plant from a multidimensional world grows within a three-dimensional world, and then every materialized thing, every manifested thing in the three-dimensional world has within it a corresponding role — that is to say, there is an existence in the multidimensional world corresponding to it. That existence in the multidimensional world is its root, and these roles are interconnected with one another.

Let me say it even more plainly. The three-dimensional world we see is internally composed of countless consciousnesses. These are not all human consciousnesses; there are the consciousnesses of ants, the consciousnesses of flowers, fruits, plants, and animals, and human consciousnesses as well. All these consciousnesses, each consciousness has an inner world, and the inner worlds of all their consciousnesses are connected together. Within this inner world where all these consciousnesses are connected, there is its own, and there is also a collective one. Then the inner worlds of these consciousnesses emerge, leap out, project out, manifest, materialize, and only then become the material world we have today. Among them it is a very complex process: they must coordinate, cooperate, be consistent, have logic, and conform to the laws of the material world. How they communicate, how they connect, how they satisfy their own conscious needs while also satisfying the common conscious needs — such a process of mutual negotiation and communication is something we humans cannot understand; we can only imagine it. Because it is too vast, too complex — you cannot even understand the level of the atom, let alone anything larger.

Even those who intellectually agree that you form your own reality find it emotionally difficult to accept this fact in certain areas.

Some people who have studied the Seth material or other spiritual materials acknowledge that this world is formed by inner thoughts and inner beliefs; theoretically they can accept it. But emotionally, they cannot accept it. Because it is completely reversed from what they were taught since childhood; it is turned upside down, black and white reversed. So I emphasize again: now you know why the Buddha insisted that all sentient beings are living in inverted dreams and illusions, that you are living in an upside-down world. Now can you understand what this "inversion" means? It is inverted here: you take the effect as the cause, and the cause as the effect. So the cause and effect you believe in simply does not exist, because you are making strained connections — you do not know where the cause is at all. The cause is in your inner world. Everything you see in the outer world is already an effect. Remember, everything you see in the outer world is already an effect; there is no cause in it. When you try to find a cause for it in the outer world, in the material world, saying that this event happened because of that event, you are making strained connections. You do not know at all what its inner cause really is, because the inner cause is not in this material world; it is in your inner world, in your heart. So the Buddha always said, "The arising of thoughts is very important; the arising of thoughts is everything." Why? It is exactly this — the arising of thoughts determines all the events you will experience in the material world afterward.

Of course, you are truly hypnotized into believing that your feelings are reactions that come from the world. Your feelings cause the world you perceive.

From childhood you have been hypnotized into believing that your feelings all come from the world. But in fact, you first had such a feeling, and then you grabbed a world to match it. The truth is that your feelings cause the events you perceive — you first had a feeling, and only then did it cause you to perceive certain events. In other words, without this feeling, you would not perceive that event. That event may still be happening, but for you, you are oblivious and unfeeling.

For example, why is it that when someone is heartbroken, he cries when he sees flowers, cries when it rains, and even cries when the sun is shining brightly — he will think that under such bright sunshine, why is the person he loves not with him; he cries when he sees other people in love, he cries no matter what he does, and anything can make him cry. Then suddenly someone calls him and says, "It was a mistake, let us make up, it was all my fault," and he immediately breaks into a smile through his tears. What he sees is still the same flowers, still the same scenery, still the same things, but everything he sees now brings him joy and boundless happiness. Do you think it has anything to do with the events? The same events — why did he, one minute earlier, feel heartbroken and see everything as a cause for sorrow, and the next minute see everything as something that makes him happy? Does this simple principle not explain this phenomenon very well — that is, your feelings determine what kind of events you experience and what events you perceive. The events are still those events, but your feelings are completely different. Then of course you react to those events again — you first had this feeling, and then you react to those events. For example, the same little flower-selling girl runs over and says, "Auntie, buy a bouquet of flowers" — when you are in love, you are very happy; when you are heartbroken, you immediately burst into tears. What is there in this event itself? How could it cause completely different feelings in you? Your feeling came first.

You are taught that your feelings must be tied to specific times.

From childhood we are told that we have such feelings because we experienced certain events, so we come to believe that these events are all aimed at you. For example:

You feel sad, perhaps because a relative died, or because you lost your job, or because you were rejected by your lover, or for any other acceptable reason.

But what is the truth? It is that you first wanted to feel sadness — your feeling of sadness came first, and the events that followed were grabbed by you, matched by you, conscripted by you into this sad emotion of yours.

You are told that your emotions are reactions to events that occur (or are occurring, or have occurred).

You are sad because a friend died, a relative died, you lost your job, and various other reasons; you think these events caused your sadness. You have never thought that it was because you wanted to be sad that these events happened.

Once you understand this principle, you will think: wow, this world is so magical! Then if I do not want to be sad, as long as I do not want to be sad, will the events I experience all be happy events? Yes, it is that simple. Heaven and hell are just a single thought apart. You often hear this saying and may not understand what it means; now I am telling you — do you understand now? Whatever you want to experience, you just choose it yourself. You say, I do not want to experience sadness now, so immediately change your thought, change your mindset, and immediately it is no longer sadness. So after a breakup you cry as if your life depends on it — that is because you want to feel this feeling; you want to prove many things through this feeling. We will not expand on this here, because we are not discussing emotions. But if you analyze carefully, what are you really crying about? Dig down one level and you will understand.

Of course, your feelings often occur beforehand, because those feelings are actually the initial events, and events flow out from them.

Does this not greatly overturn your understanding? He says:

A relative, perhaps, is ready to die, and although there are no outward signs, the relative's feelings are likely to be complex, containing both relief and sorrow. And then these feelings are perceived by you.

When a person is about to die, although he does not show it outwardly, he knows it inwardly. You will often see cases where a child dies in a car accident on the road or dies in an accident, and when the parents recall it, they find that when he left the house that morning he was somewhat unusual — he would tidy up his things, dress neatly, say goodbye to his parents, or suddenly say something especially emotional: "Mom, I love you so much." At the time you did not feel there was anything abnormal, but when you recall it you will notice. So this person who is about to die, his inner feelings are definitely complex, with relief — finally about to leave this world — and sorrow — reluctant to leave people, reluctant to leave things. And these feelings are perceived by you through telepathy — remember, through telepathy, not through what you can perceive on the surface. But the main event is subjective — you first felt this complex emotion of your relative, and then the event of his death triggered your sadness, and then you think it was his death that brought your sadness. In fact, this feeling of sadness before his death had already been felt by you, and then through the event of his death, you were given a reason.

In your era, to realize that you actually do form your own experience and your world is somewhat like a psychological trick. Making you believe this is more like a psychological game, a belief contrary to the facts, only because the weight of evidence seems to lean toward the opposite end.

Because you are the exact opposite of this fact, it is only caused by your perceptual habits -- you do have such perceptual habits.

That kind of realization is very much like what some people discover in dreams.

When you truly understand this point, it is a kind of realization, or sudden enlightenment, or awakening -- whatever you call it. You will discover that the true truth of the world lies in your inner world, and the outer world is merely a concrete reflection that cooperates with your inner world. What is this realization like?

When they are still in the dream, yet suddenly become awake, and then first realize that they are dreaming, and second realize that they themselves have created the drama being experienced.

This feeling is like when you are having a lucid dream, dreaming consciously. For example, you dream that you are in a large family during the Republican era, and you are a young master living your own life. You live your life normally, whether with three wives and four concubines, or love and hate, or patriotism -- in any case, it is your storyline. Then suddenly, in that instant you wake with a start, and you discover that you are in a dream: "So I dreamed that I was in the Republican era, that I was a young master, that I was throwing myself into the revolution, along with my great cause and the love and hate in my life..." You discover that all of this is a dream. And the most amazing thing is, you discover that the plot in this dream can be arranged by you -- whatever kind of scene you want to arrange, that scene appears. You are creating your own drama.

And the most amazing thing is, at this time you have two consciousnesses: one consciousness continues playing its role in the dream, playing this young master of the great family; the other consciousness clearly knows it is dreaming, and moreover the plot in the dream can be arranged by itself. Your two consciousnesses exist at the same time, and they do not conflict with each other, they cooperate very well, and each knows and can feel the other -- the you in the dream also knows that you are dreaming, and also knows that the you outside the dream is watching yourself, and also knows what kind of role you are playing, and plays it very well. This is the state of enlightenment, the state of awakening. If you ask what the state of enlightenment is, this is one kind of enlightened state.

You might say, once you reach the state of enlightenment, is it all over, and the person leaps out of the three realms and is no longer within the five elements? No. The state of enlightenment is only the most elementary level. You have only just begun; you have not even crossed this threshold yet, you have only just touched the door -- that is all you can say -- you have only just come to know what is real.

If you are to understand that you create your own reality, you need that kind of wakefulness in the normal waking state, at least for many of you.

If you want to feel it emotionally, experientially, and through personal practice, rather than feeling "beliefs create reality" merely from theory or from words, you must have a certain ability to wake up from your present everyday life -- in everyday life you can also maintain two consciousnesses. One consciousness is above, watching the present you living a life that you yourself have created, and all of this is arranged by you, wanted by you, and intended for you to experience. You must have this kind of consciousness that transcends your present role, while at the same time you can still maintain the consciousness of your present role without losing it. When these two consciousnesses exist at the same time, you are in the state of enlightenment. This is what Seth wants to tell you.

Of course, some people grasp the trick more easily than others. Some people are born with this ability; it is very easy for them to project out of body, very easy to have lucid dreams, very easy to see themselves sleeping in bed, their body still in bed while their spirit body has already gone out. For these people, such things are extremely easy; they do not need to make any special effort to feel them. Others simply cannot achieve it no matter what. That does not matter; do not worry about it. But you can, through your own cognition, through meditative states or through these conscious states, experience it once or twice, and that is enough. You do not need to live in this state all the time; you only need to understand that you are in this state. If you can feel it personally, the feeling will be very intense; but even if you have not felt it personally, you can still imagine what kind of state this is.

For you, this realization itself does indeed truly change the rules of the game, to a rather considerable degree.

See how tactful, how conservative, and how precise Seth's wording is -- he says "to a rather considerable degree." He does not say completely, which is interesting. You cannot say it changes completely, nor can you say that once I know all the rules of the game I can do whatever I want. You can only say that you change the rules of the game to a rather considerable degree -- and a rather considerable degree is enough. Why can it not be complete? Think about why. It is very simple: because your present level of consciousness, your present stage of consciousness, has not yet reached that point. The relationships of consciousness connections among all things -- you have not yet truly comprehended them; you can only comprehend a very small part, just the part connected with you. And as for the connections among all things on the entire earth, this network of consciousness connections, you still see only a tiny point of it. But for you this is already very powerful, already quite enough. Later, as your consciousness continues to rise, you can feel more and more, but ultimately you still cannot, while you have a physical body, feel the state in which the consciousnesses of all things on the entire earth are connected with one another. You can feel that they are connected, and you can also feel the interactive relationship between them and you, but you cannot grasp the whole picture. So he says, for you, it can only reach a rather considerable degree -- you can change the rules of the game to a rather considerable degree, but that does not mean you can change them without limit.

There is a reason why I am discussing this book with you here, rather than mentioning this point in earlier books.

Why am I telling you this here, why did I not tell you these things before, why did I not say them in The Nature of Personal Reality, why did I not say them in Seth Speaks, why do I only say them in this book? Indeed, our books follow their own rhythm; what is said first and what is said later has its own pattern and rhythm:

The content of this book, in a certain way, makes a further and more detailed statement of The Nature of Personal Reality³.

If from the very beginning, at the very opening of Seth Speaks, I had told you that all your experience is false, inverted, and mistaken -- you simply could not have accepted it, nor could you have understood it. I could only lead you step by step to the present, bring you here, and then discuss it in this book, The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events¹, so that you would have a preliminary foundation for accepting it and a reserve of knowledge.

As long as you believe that good events and bad events are punishments or rewards carried out by a personified god according to your behavior, or on the other hand, you believe that events are largely the result of a meaningless, chaotic, and subjective tangle produced by an accidental Darwinian worldview, then you cannot consciously realize your own creativity, and you also cannot play, become, or serve as the role that a person, a species, should play in the universe.

Whether from a religious perspective you believe there is something high above, whether a god or a creator, who rewards and punishes you according to whether your behavior is good or bad -- and this includes Buddhism, which also holds such views, with karma, creating karma, going to hell, doing good deeds -- or whether you believe that this world is born of life in nature through an irregular, accidental Darwinian evolutionary viewpoint. He says that no matter which one you believe, you violate one most basic principle: the role that you, as a person, as a human being, should play in this universe.

What role? Do you know now? You are the role of a creator. If there is a creator in this world, assuming there is a creator, then you are that co-creator -- in English it is called co-creator. This is your role. And whether according to scientific cognition or religious cognition, you cannot fully play your role well. Whether you regard yourself as a victim, or as an accidental, random product of nature, neither is the role you should play. On the contrary, if you do not play your role well, you will become one who lives in such a world: things happen to you -- as we often say, things happened to you -- coming at you. In that world, you must offer sacrifices to some kind of deity, or regard yourself as the victim of a nature that does not care about you. You must struggle against nature; nature always wants to deal with you; you must fight against the natural environment, find your own living space, and only then can you stand out from nature and climb to the top of the food chain -- that is one viewpoint. Or the other: only by groveling at the feet of a deity, completely giving up your own thought, creativity, and initiative, doing whatever he tells you is right and not doing whatever he tells you is wrong.

Both of these are extremely foolish approaches. Not only foolish -- to use Seth's theory and say something rather harsh -- you are simply not worthy of being human; you have not become the role that a human being should assume in the universe.

Having the Courage to Take Responsibility for Yourself

On the one hand, you still need to preserve the integrity of the concrete events as you understand them—that is, you need to see the concrete event, and at the same time be able to see the cause behind that concrete event, knowing that it is projected outward by the inner self. This is what is meant by integrity. At the same time, each of you must somewhat shift the focus of your attention: you begin to become aware of the connection between your subjective reality at any given time and those objective events you perceive. You are the originator of those events.

You need to maintain somewhat of a shift in the focus of your attention. Do not concentrate only on events in the physical world. Recognize to some degree that behind these physical events, they are triggered by your thoughts, your beliefs, your emotions, and your feelings. Then, you must truly recognize that you are the originator of all of this. You must take up this responsibility. You cannot push it onto anyone else—not your parents, not your early experiences, not your family of origin, not even past-life karma or misdeeds from previous lives. That is all nonsense. Stop dragging those things into it. You must take up the responsibility that a person ought to take up. All of these things arise because of you. When we see people who blame heaven and other people again, you will understand: they are shirking responsibility.

This recognition does indeed involve a new performance of your own consciousness. What does that mean? Once you understand these things, you will no longer perform passively the way you did before—where events affected your emotions, and emotions then led to a series of results, behaviors, and actions. You will carefully discern, or immediately recognize: What does this event mean? It means which emotions, which feelings, which beliefs within me are being projected outward, causing me to experience this event? When you recognize this, then when your consciousness arranges events and arranges the plot again, you will have a sense of a new performance. You will no longer be as passive as before. This is a leap forward spiritually and imaginatively.

At that point, you begin to be able to control some things—to direct achievements that you have always been carrying out but have never consciously perceived. What does that mean? When you become aware that your beliefs or your inner world determine the occurrence of events in the outer world, you begin to be able to direct those events that you want to have happen. And these are things you have been doing ever since birth. Everything in your life right now—your current environment, your circumstances, everything related to you, including yourself—all of it is projected by your own consciousness, but you have never been aware of it. You have been doing this since you were little, since birth, but you did not know it.

This achievement does not require you to train for it. It does not require you to level up or to develop some skill. This ability is innate in every person. You do not need to worry about where it came from, and you do not need to worry about how it is accomplished. You only need to know that you have this ability. Now you simply go and use it. You are about to begin your new performance. Do not continue performing in the old performance. The form and pattern of the performance have changed: before, you were only an actor, and none of the plot was under your control—it was controlled by the scriptwriter and the director. Now you are the actor, the scriptwriter, and the director all at once. The nature of the performance has changed. A new performance has begun.

The Second Nature of Technology

This part is very important. Seth says that early humans knew the objective world was a manifestation or projection of their subjective world. Humans in ancient times knew this, which is why there are so many myths and so many things that seem incredible to us today. But as a species, humanity developed what could be called a second nature -- a technological world.

What is second nature? First nature is what we are born with, such as language, vision, perception, feeling, and thought -- these are all first nature. Second nature is acquired, yet it deeply affects our lives and becomes part of every person's life. What is our human second nature? It is the scientific world, the scientific attribute.

This topic could easily be expanded into a whole book; today we will only touch on it briefly. For example, when you pick up your phone and connect to the internet, you can communicate with people all over the world -- this in itself is a technological world. This technological world has become so tightly interwoven with our lives that it has become part of life. We do not find it amazing, but its influence is far-reaching. We no longer communicate face to face as we used to; now we communicate through the internet. Face-to-face communication and online communication are very different: in reality, when several people gather for a meeting, there are body movements, postures, tone of voice, and also small gestures like pouring tea for one another or passing a teacup -- these tiny actions subtly change the relationships between people. But in an online meeting, many people do not speak and quietly hide in a corner, as if you cannot see them. In real life, if everyone sat together without saying a word for half a day, it would seem strange; you have to engage in social activity with the group, and even if you say very little, you still have to greet people politely. Online, none of this is required. These subtle changes deeply alter us.

There are many other aspects as well: when it is cold, you simply turn on the air conditioner; when you want food, you order delivery; you do not even need cash to pay -- it is all WeChat Pay, Alipay, and even virtual currencies like Bitcoin in the future. These things have already profoundly changed our lives.

Seth sees directly to the essence of things. He says, this is also a world in which you now exist. We may now spend half our time living in the physical world and the other half living in a virtual world. When we pick up our phones and communicate and discuss through WeChat groups and online meetings, we are living in such a technological virtual world. The so-called virtual is relative to reality, but it is not virtual -- every person participating in the meeting is a living, flesh-and-blood human being. Is it the same as meeting in person? No, it is not.

Seth goes on to say that complex social structures emerged. Here the translation omits the word "structure" -- the original text says "Social structure," and he left out "structure." In 1978 the internet was not yet widespread; the first generation of the internet only appeared in 1969, and it was still used only within the U.S. military's internal network or in laboratories⁶. The internet only began to spread gradually in mainland China in 1990⁷. So you can understand this complex sociality -- now we can all understand it: all kinds of posts online, everyone has their own microblog, Facebook, or online space, forming small or even large societies, and complex social structures emerged from them.

And to develop that kind of structure, in such a technological world, we must distinguish between the subjective and the objective. In the context of science, remember this: the technological world absolutely requires distinguishing the subjective from the objective; this is the fundamental attribute of technology. The objective world and the subjective world -- the subjective is oneself, and the objective is everything outside oneself. But in the real world, the subjective and the objective are one; the objective world emerges from or is triggered by the subjective world, and its source is in the inner world. But in the technological world, they are separated.

What is very important is this: you must understand your position, and you must achieve the manipulation of consciousness. What position? Between humanity's first attribute and second attribute, we must know where our position lies. What kind of position? To achieve the manipulation of consciousness -- you must consciously manipulate this consciousness, and what result does that achieve? It will make you take truly conscious responsibility for your actions and your experience.

You must understand that in this technological world, the subjective and the objective are separated very clearly. And you, as a being with a unified cognition of the inner world and the outer world, must take control of the manipulation of consciousness and actively manipulate consciousness. In other words, you cannot hand your consciousness over to technology. There is an implied meaning in this passage of Seth's that he did not expand on; I will expand on it:

You must take responsibility as a human being and understand what this world is about. This world is not a purely objective, freely developing, self-contained system; it is projected or triggered by our subjective world. But technology has developed so rapidly and reached such a high level that it has almost formed our human second nature. If we then hand our consciousness over to it as well -- in other words, if we believe that artificial intelligence can one day replace human intelligence and replace our consciousness, then we are handing our consciousness over. When you hand your consciousness over, your existence as a human being has already lost your position and role, and in this universe you will no longer be able to find your role. To put it even more bluntly, humanity would have no meaning in existing, and that technological consciousness would take over you.

Seth said this in 1978, which was far too early; people probably did not feel much about it. Today, more than forty years later, when we talk about this again, we should be able to understand what he meant. In Homo Deus⁸, Harari keeps saying that in the future a kind of god-man will emerge, who has mastered the technology of science and artificial intelligence, combining AI with the human brain to form a new kind of human. He says the future will definitely develop in this direction: a small group of people who first master the combination of AI and human brain consciousness will control the development of all humanity, and the majority of people will be enslaved and controlled by them. If development follows this direction, this is inevitable. So now even Elon Musk is developing brain-computer interfaces and human-machine interfaces⁹, and he is also developing in this direction.

There is another view that holds that the time left for human awakening is not much. If we cannot achieve true awakening before brain-computer interfaces take effect, or before artificial intelligence acquires human consciousness, then humanity will definitely be controlled by them. Because once they combine with this capacity of consciousness, they will in turn completely erase the truly valuable part of us and turn it into a purely objective world -- a world controlled by machines.

But why do people today still develop in this direction? Because we humans believe that we live in an objective world, so what is wrong with developing one step further in the objective world? But they never realize that they are living in a subjective world -- this is what they have not recognized.

Spiral Ascent and the Role of Humanity

Why must we humans ascend in a spiral, rather than shooting up like a rocket? Rocket-style ascent is a straight line upward -- the past has already been trampled underfoot, and we never look back. But human progress is necessarily spiral. If you have ever climbed a spiral staircase, you know: suppose there is a thousand-story spiral staircase, and with no elevator you can only climb. When you get tired and rest, you look down -- you can see the stairs you have already walked, and that past knowledge and experience can prompt reflection and be of use to you. But if it were a straight staircase, once you go up one level you can no longer see the level below. So human civilization is necessarily a spiral ascent; the past can always provide us with nourishment and reference.

You will find that ancient humans actually understood the world more clearly than we modern people do -- they could very clearly recognize the true relationship between subjective events and objective events, while we modern people do not even know it. This is our tragedy. So why are we discussing the Seth material, and why am I trying every way I can to let more people know about this? That is the reason. We need to know the role we as humans ought to play in the universe and in the course of historical development. Seth here is truly enlightening and deafening, giving us a wake-up call: you and your experience must take up the responsibility of true consciousness -- what responsibility? Consciousness created this world; all of this, every bit of it, was created by your consciousness. This is the true responsibility of your consciousness.

In other words, whether you want to be controlled by robots, whether you want artificial intelligence to one day rule this earth, is entirely up to us humans ourselves. You can see that in the development of many issues, it is quite interesting. Take genetic engineering, for example. Although humanity has already reached a very advanced level, countries around the world seem to agree unanimously that it cannot be used on newborns or human embryos -- because they know that genetic modification of embryos would bring unpredictable disaster to humanity. Human understanding of life is far too weak, not even the slightest fraction of the surface, and yet we want to change our own genes. You do not even understand what a gene is or what its function is; you have only seen a tiny bit of the surface. As for the material manifestation of genes, the invisible world and spiritual world within them, why genes manifest this way, why they mutate, under what circumstances they mutate, and when they change -- we know none of it. Just like the viruses we now face, mutating again and again, we do not even know how they mutate; we only know that they have mutated, not why, under what circumstances, or what the purpose and intent of the mutation is. To try to modify genes on such a foundation -- is that not ridiculous?

So countries around the world do not allow genetic research on embryos. It can be done on adults, because it only affects you as an individual and will not affect the genetic structure of humanity as a whole. For example, if you get cancer, you can undergo gene therapy, targeted therapy, genetic intervention, or mRNA viral treatment methods -- all of that is fine, because the impact is limited to you as a single individual.

The same applies to artificial intelligence. You see many scientists advocating the benefits of artificial intelligence, and only Elon Musk¹⁰ has stepped forward to say it is bad; he believes artificial intelligence brings disaster. But while saying it is bad, he has actively moved to the very forefront: his Tesla has always used artificial intelligence algorithms, and when cars can drive themselves in the future, there will be a very powerful artificial intelligence inside; the brain-computer interface he is now developing is also at the forefront of the artificial intelligence field. Faced with this threat, he does not flee or avoid it, but rises to the challenge, taking the lead in research and in understanding. He understands the principle that consciousness can live forever while the physical body cannot. Look at one of his interviews with Jack Ma¹¹, and you will know how profound the gap between them is -- they are simply not on the same level.

We modern people do not understand, because after humanity has achieved tremendous material abundance, we do not know where to go in the future. The path of religion is already blocked -- after several thousand years it has reached a dead end, because it is bound too tightly to the ruling class and interest groups. The path of science now seems workable, but it too seems about to be blocked. When both of these are blocked, humanity is completely bewildered about the future of society. We do not know where to go next. As children we could dream freely -- for example, in mainland China, realizing the Four Modernizations; in Western society, there were very beautiful depictions of the future, tremendous material abundance, and so on. But what exactly is the next stage of human social development? What is the next stage after capitalism? No one knows. If capitalism continues to develop, it will inevitably develop into financial oligarchy and oligopolistic economy; monopoly and such things will inevitably occur. Today you can already see the power of these internet giants. And if it develops further, although there are many solutions now -- for example, using blockchain technology for decentralization, achieving technological decentralization, network decentralization, government decentralization, and decentralization of human organization -- this is a countermeasure. We lack a clear understanding of the direction of humanity's future development. When we cannot see the future clearly, we are easily handed over to the current mainstream thing -- technology.

The Moment of Awakening Is Already Prepared

Seth says: You can wake up from the normal, waking state. What does waking up mean? It means enlightenment, realization. And that is the next step that consciousness will naturally follow, the next step that your physiological makeup has already made you ready to take.

What this means is that humanity has now reached such a point in time, and should move on to the next step. The time has come when we are physiologically prepared for it. The "you" spoken of here refers to humanity as a whole -- we humans have arrived at a period of collective awakening. Technology has also prepared this ability for you. We need a collective awakening, a state of waking up while awake. You are already in the waking state, so how can you wake up? What is being spoken of here is awakening, realization, enlightenment.

The work we are doing now is an effort in this direction. Each of us can truly attain that kind of cognition -- we do occasionally attain that kind of cognition. This cognition also brings triumph and challenge. In those areas of your life where you feel satisfied, you should give yourself the credit, because that is the result of your own conscious creation. You should thank yourself, give yourself the credit.

And in those areas where you are dissatisfied, you should remind yourself: you are involved in a learning process. When there are satisfying parts of your life, you should thank yourself, believe in yourself, and say that you created all of this yourself. But there are still many unsatisfactory parts of life, and Seth tells you that these unsatisfactory areas are places where you need to learn and improve -- learn how to use your consciousness, how to use your inner beliefs, how to change your beliefs to achieve your accomplishments, to achieve your desires, to achieve the kind of satisfying state you want. You should remind yourself that you are merely involved in a learning process.

You have already become brave enough to accept responsibility for your actions. What this means is that you should simply act, without asking about the results. Very often we do not dare to act, for fear of bearing responsibility. You have impulses in your heart, ideals, ideas, but you do not dare to move, afraid that you cannot bear the responsibility. But you have reached the point where you should take on this responsibility. Why? Because the things that are not going well for you now are already the results of your actions, and you are already bearing them. You are already brave enough.

Let me sort this out once more: when things are going well for you, you should affirm yourself -- this is your own choice, the result of your own inner belief system's choosing. You have done very well, wonderfully, keep going. When things are not going well, when you are dissatisfied, you should understand that you are in a learning process, and moreover, you are very bravely willing to accept the results of the actions brought about by these unhelpful beliefs -- the unsatisfactory circumstances, environment, financial situation, relationships, career, company, all of these you have dared to accept. Give yourself a round of applause for this bravery of yours, give yourself some encouragement. You will find that Seth, no matter from which angle, gives you tremendous encouragement. Learning, after all, has consequences; learning requires paying tuition, and this is what you have to bear. But you need not worry, because when you have learned all of this, understood all of this, and mastered all of this, you will begin to act out your new script, begin your new life. You have already grasped the secret of this world, grasped the ability to modify the rules of the game of life -- although it can only be modified to a large extent, not completely overturned. For example, if you are a man and want to become a woman, it is not easy, but now there is gender reassignment surgery, and if you want to do it, you can.

You must understand that all of this is your own choice. You chose failure also because you are brave; you chose poverty also because you are brave. Do you understand Seth's words now? You should applaud yourself, because you are too brave. So Seth's material carries warmth; it carries emotion. It is not like other material that is cold and detached, or that stands high above you and criticizes you from the start. He is someone who ignites the passion in your heart, who ignites the enthusiasm in your heart.

Insights Beyond the Age and the Grip of Old Beliefs

Rob added a note. He said that what Seth had just said about accepting responsibility for one's own actions reminded them of the personal challenges that come with the roles we choose in our physical lives. Jane and Rob tried to keep in mind some words from Seth's private sessions in 1976 and on June 25, 1977¹². That passage was a wake-up call for Jane and Rob, and it is the same for everyone.

Seth put it very well in that passage:

Because of your individual and joint intuitive understanding and intellectual judgment, you were able to clearly intuit humanity's difficulties very early on. This encouraged you to question the entire framework of your civilization. You were able to do what very few people can do, which is to go beyond your own era intuitively, mentally, and sometimes emotionally, casting aside the shortsightedness of your contemporaries, as well as the unfortunate religious, scientific, and social beliefs of the time.

What this means is that we humans have a remarkable ability: we can transcend the era we live in, not only intellectually and mentally, but sometimes emotionally as well, casting aside the shortsightedness of our contemporaries and the restrictive religious, scientific, and social beliefs of their time. Think back to the Tao Te Ching¹³ that Laozi wrote several thousand years ago, and then look at the material in the I Ching. Their level of wisdom not only transcended their own era, it even transcends our present era, leaving us far behind. Even today we cannot fully understand the material in the Tao Te Ching, and even the material in the Analects¹⁴, which we think we understand, we actually do not understand at all. So you can see that the kind of person Seth is talking about does exist: someone who can transcend the nature of their own time.

However, the old beliefs in society can still grip people emotionally. Some people have transcended them, yet those old beliefs, the ones that belong to a past era and should have been replaced by new beliefs, can still grip many people emotionally. Even today, those very naive religions that have no real substance and have contributed nothing to human civilization can still grip the vast majority of people, and they are extremely widespread and common. They no longer have any positive effect on human development; in fact, they have become a hindrance to human development, yet they can still grip many people emotionally. And some useful beliefs have also been overused. What do I mean by useful? I mean genuinely useful in reality. Technology, for example, is certainly useful: we can hold a phone in our hands and contact people all over the world. But these things have also been overused, and this has gone on for too long.

Can you say these things prevent the effectiveness of technology? No matter how much you talk about it, do you still have to rely on the electricity generated by power plants? Can you generate electricity with your mind? No. Can you say you will not use it? Of course you cannot stop using it; of course you should make use of it. Seth did not deny its usefulness; he only said not to overuse it, not to rely on it exclusively, but to combine the outer and the inner, to consider the subjective world and the objective world together as a whole. You must not misunderstand Seth's words and swing to the other extreme.

Let me review for you what he has been saying all along: you must still maintain the integrity of the specific events you perceive, maintain that integrity; you change the focus of your attention, and you begin to become aware of the connection between your subjective reality at any given time and the objective events you perceive. He is not telling you to abandon objective events and retreat directly into the subjective world. He is only asking you to have a comprehensive understanding, to know the relationship between objective events and subjective events, and to know how those objective events come about. He is not asking you to deny those objective events.

Because you can see so clearly the failures of your era, that is our strength: we can see the problems of the age at a glance. But at the same time, you may magnify them, or focus all your attention on these problems, to the point that you lose your sense of emotional security. The more you dwell on these problems, the more you feel that human society has no hope: it chases material things and does not pursue the spiritual, and scientific development seems to have no future. If your attention and emotions are all concentrated on this, you will certainly have no sense of security, because according to your reasoning, the outcome will definitely not be good. And your reaction is to build up a defense mechanism, to begin resisting, resenting, becoming negative and pessimistic about society and human development. None of this is right.

Let me put Seth's meaning in simpler terms. Humanity as a group, as a species, has something remarkable about it: it can transcend its own era and the understanding of its contemporaries, seeing the problems of human civilization or society with great foresight and insight, and seeing them deeply and accurately. Then there are two choices: one is to transcend, like Laozi, and no longer remain in the world; the other is to lead and to change, like Confucius, who saw the problems and entered the world to change them. This is a characteristic of us humans, and also a strength. But at the same time it is a weakness, because when you see the problems of human society too clearly, you begin to worry about the future. When you place your attention on these things, you develop a sense of powerlessness and insecurity, and this worry and insecurity produce an unhealthy psychological state, which in turn manifests the very results you do not want. The more we worry about something and the more we focus on it, the more it manifests.

What Seth means is this: you have the ability to see the crux of the problem, so go and change it. But you must change it with a beautiful vision of the future and firm belief, not by exaggerating the problems and difficulties facing human society, not by going around proclaiming and exaggerating these shortcomings. You should see the good side of it. If you see the beautiful prospects for the future development of human society, then go and put it into practice, and promote it in reality. What is the point of complaining, exaggerating, frightening yourself and all your fellow humans by saying that this path will inevitably lead to destruction? And you are forgetting one thing: the events you experience in reality are all created by your own consciousness.

So I think a line from a book I read a couple of days ago was especially striking: rather than predicting the future, it is better to create the future. If you are full of anxiety about the future, it is better to create the future you want than to worry endlessly like the man of Qi who feared the sky would fall. This is the proper way for us humans to take on our roles: to change the world and create the future we want. This is also the reason we have recently been founding a spiritual university and creating such an organization. We want to use this approach to truly change our own surroundings, change our society, and even change the development and course of human civilization.

Rob added a final note. He said that he and Jane had also thought that The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events¹ was an extension of The Nature of Personal Reality³. And to them it seemed unbelievable how quickly time had passed: between Seth's production of The Nature of Personal Reality³ and The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events¹, five other books had come in between, and by now five or six years had passed. He had dictated The Nature of Personal Reality¹⁵ in 1972 to 1973, and after five or six years and five or six books in between, to come back and say that this book was an extension and continuation of that one felt quite amazing to them.

Session 831

Today we are sharing the second section of Chapter Five, which is Session 831 of the book. This session began on Monday, January 15, 1979, at 9:22 p.m. From the previous session in March 1978 until now, a full nine months and more have passed, just under ten months.

An Interlude During the Hiatus

Rob said at the beginning that last autumn, the roses seemed to linger for a long time. On September 28, 1978, when he cut a few roses from the trellis climbing beside the kitchen window at the northeast corner of our hillside home, Jane wrote this little poem:

The earthly rose contains the seed of eternity; the entire universe, and you and I, are reflected within it.

This poem actually conveys the sense that the universe is a holographic universe—any point in the universe contains all the information of the entire universe.

Jane's poem can also serve as a symbol, showing that she had not held a session for The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events for 42 weeks. Indeed, the autumn and winter of 1978 had both passed, and we had already entered the next year. But during those nine and a half months, we also accomplished many things, including holding 56 sessions unrelated to this book—whether or not they were private sessions. Those sessions, of course, already numbered more than double the 22 sessions Jane had given for The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events. During this time, Seth often interrupted like this for two or three months, and this interruption was the longest one yet, especially with regard to simultaneous time and my statement—we were not prepared to ask Seth when this book would be completed.

During this period, we completed the posthumous journal of an American philosopher. That content is now being shared in Helen's channel in the form of a reading; those who are interested can go take a look. This book is extremely well written—James Williams¹⁶ was, in life, the most famous contemporary American psychologist and philosopher, and after his death he continued to use his post-death perspective to observe American society. Whether from political, psychological, philosophical, or various sociological angles, this book provides an excellent understanding of American society. Then there was further education from Oversoul Seven—that was another book in the Oversoul Seven series. We also completed The Nature of the Psyche. So during this period, they completed three books one after another, and also held 56 sessions.

Jane said that in October 1978, something else of great importance to Jane and me happened: a student named Sue Watkins wrote a book about the ESP class Jane had held for seven and a half years, from the autumn of 1967 to February 1975. Sue was a student in the ESP class, and she recorded the entire process of her time in the class, including her own feelings, what she saw and heard, and her experiences, and titled the book Conversations with Seth¹⁷. This book has also been shared in the materials of our group. This was something Jane herself had never thought she would do, but had hoped would be accomplished. And Sue, as a student in the class, had her own psychic gifts and also worked in journalism and as a reporter, so she was the ideal person to complete this work.

If you have studied some spiritual materials, especially if you have done the 21-day Wind Sound Journey meditation with us, and also completed the 24-week Universal Amazement course, plus followed me for over a year studying the Seth material, then many people will encounter this kind of "what you wish for comes true" event in their lives: you want to accomplish something, it is just a thought, you do not know how it will be accomplished, and you have not thought about how it will be accomplished, and then it gets accomplished in a mysterious way. This kind of thing will happen more and more.

Beginning in March 1978, the private sessions they held twice a week, or the sessions unrelated to writing the book, all became a steady and reassuring creative undercurrent behind all the other dizzying activities I just mentioned. Those 56 sessions contained too much to give meaningful excerpts, or even to summarize briefly. When Rob was writing about these things, Jane did give him a hint, and the following passage comes from Jane's insight.

Why Did Seth Pause for So Long

Jane said that, looking back now on those nine and a half months of sessions, it was quite clear what Seth was trying to do. From the very beginning, not long after The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events began, he had given them the Framework 1 and Framework 2 material in private sessions. And in the main text of the book, he also set aside a chapter specifically for this, from the final ending of Chapter 3 all the way through the entirety of Chapter 4, using six sessions to keep discussing the relationship between Framework 1 and Framework 2, and what the nature of Framework 2 actually is. Even though Seth also had a dozen or so sessions in the books written for the sessions discussing those frameworks of the psyche—that is, Seth had at least 12 sessions discussing Framework 1 and Framework 2, these frameworks of the psyche.

In the end, he still used such a long period of rest—Jane considered these 42 weeks, nearly ten months, all as rest—to re-educate them, to look at their own previous beliefs and the beliefs of the entire world from the perspective of Framework 1 and Framework 2. From Jane's point of view, throughout this process Seth had been using the ideas of Framework 1 and Framework 2 to examine the things happening to them personally and in the whole world, observing from the perspective of Framework 1 and Framework 2, and then carrying out a process of re-education for them.

These private sessions occurred in parallel with the material of The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, and that material truly made them view current events with very different eyes. For example, several times when they asked about some local fatal accidents, wondering strangely how such events fit into the activities of Framework 1 and Framework 2, some of these sessions were entirely about private beliefs, but usually Seth enlarged such beliefs into a broader scope.

Four days after the tragic Jonestown incident in Guyana, he began to discuss that event involving the mass suicide or murder¹⁸ of more than 900 people on November 18, 1978, in the small South American town of Jonestown. On the surface it appeared to be suicide, and in a certain sense it was also murder. The collective deaths of these more than 900 people caused a tremendous shock at the time, both in the United States and throughout the world—some Americans had gone to a small town in South America. Later in this book, a great deal of space is devoted to describing in detail the reasons this event happened, the deep psychological activities behind it, and the background. After that event, they often hoped that Seth would discuss the Jonestown, Guyana incident in this book, because it had shaken them so greatly, and they did not understand why these more than 900 people would commit mass suicide—what kind of collective beliefs such a collective event involved.

Seth could not have been unaware of their wishes. Therefore, interspersed among those private materials were some excellent, lively discussions about what was happening in the world at that time, and about the connection between creativity and Framework 2. He also talked about abnormal mental behavior, early civilizations, and all sorts of other topics. During those nine and a half months, it was as if Seth was trying to help them break old associations once and for all. Without a doubt, he had done his best; if anything fell short, then that was their own problem.

Rob then went on to say something very meaningful. He said that they, like anyone else, had their share of troubling matters—Seth never promised them a rose garden (this is a proverbial expression in English, meaning that no one has promised you a beautiful heaven or an earthly paradise). And when they encountered the daily joys, adventures, and misfortunes of life, they also had their highs and lows in living. In a great many sessions, Seth discussed several of their personal problems: Rob's occasional physical discomforts and minor ailments—at one moment back pain, at another hand tremors, bothered by various symptoms that were not serious but annoying; and Jane's long-term problem of severe joint stiffness. If Seth did not give them a rose garden, then he did indeed try to tell them where the weeds came from. This statement is very wise—if Seth did not promise them an earthly paradise, then he also told them what caused the earthly paradise ultimately not to come true, that is, where the weeds came from.

These personal materials did give their various challenges a much broader perspective, and they made some progress in overcoming these challenges—one can only say some progress, not complete overcoming. Like anyone else, they had to learn on their own to make use of Seth's material. Rob said that although they were the ones transmitting Seth's material, in learning and using Seth's material they were the same as the readers. The problem was that usually they were so busy obtaining the material, preparing it for publication, proofreading, typing, transmitting, and transcribing, that they had no time to really study it the way readers did. This is the truth—in her lifetime Jane really did not study it as diligently as readers did, because she did not have the time: she still had to write her own books, occasionally had the hobby and interest of painting, her body was not well and was uncomfortable, and when she had a little time she still needed to rest, and she also had to transmit the material and proofread it—the workload was enormous.

So Seth tried to make some compensation in those private sessions. Because there was no time to study during the process of transmission, Seth used private sessions unrelated to the published books to give them some special tutoring, by discussing the things each of them faced, to let them understand the core things in the Seth material. One could see that Seth was full of love for the two of them, truly wanting to help them, and also knowing that they really had no time to study, so he used private sessions to let them gain some insight and benefit.

But we readers today are able to systematically receive, from beginning to end in a complete book, the entire framework system and theoretical knowledge transmitted in one of Seth's books—I would say that we are more fortunate than they were. Because they did not have such an opportunity; they could only, in a scattered way, one piece and one session at a time, use the time of private sessions to help themselves make a greater personal use of the material.

Seth's Oral Account

Then Seth came through and said that he was continuing on with Chapter Five -- The Mechanics of Experience. Even after nearly ten months had passed, Seth still knew exactly what he was supposed to be talking about, because for him there is no such concept as time.

Organized religion has made many major mistakes.

This is Seth's premise.

But for generations Christianity provided a framework that was accepted by most of the world at that time, within which experience could be judged by very clear rules. Although experience was carefully examined and modified, it was also allowed a certain richness of expression, as long as it remained within the bounds set by religious dogma.

What Seth means by this passage is that organized religion -- regardless of which religion, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity -- has indeed made major mistakes throughout history, but they have also made contributions: they put forward a basic framework and structure that fit what the world could accept at that particular period. The world was divided into good and bad, good and evil; Buddhism spoke of cause and effect, karma, and reincarnation; Islam had something similar. This approach provided a framework that everyone could accept. Although from today's perspective we can see that it had many places that were not ultimate or had limitations, placed within that historical period, it satisfied people's psychological need for a structure and framework.

Within that framework, you were allowed a certain richness of expression, but you could not go beyond the circle drawn by the church. For example, if a person was a sinner -- Christianity holds that every person is born a sinner, coming with original sin -- but everyone had a path to redemption; it was not that a sinner deserved to die. You had a way to be saved: believe in God, and do the things he prescribed. And the immortality of the soul was mostly not questioned; most people believed that the soul was eternal -- that after the final judgment following your death, you could go to heaven and gain eternal life.

Almost all kinds of social activities or religious experiences, within the Christian communities of that era, had fixed rules that could be followed. All people accepted the rituals set for birth, death, and the important stages in between: from birth there had to be baptism and the appointment of godparents, step by step all the way to what rituals were performed at death and how the post-death arrangements were to be made. Actually, China was the same: from birth to death there was a whole series of regulations; from the time of Confucius, when rites and propriety were emphasized, there were already certain rules.

The church was the authority, and the individual -- actually automatically -- structured personal experience to conform to an accepted norm. All life experiences from birth to death were reduced to or structured into social norms that the church could accept; everyone followed these norms, and no one was an exception. Such a society actually had its advantages: the advantage was that you did not have to think; others had already laid out the norms for you, and no matter how you experienced life, it was all laid out for you. For example, if you fell ill, they would say it was because you had been punished by God, that you must have done something bad; if you had an accident; if you became wealthy and your family was happy, they would say this was all a blessing given to you by God. All of this, the good and the bad, was given to you by God -- he had a self-consistent logic here, so for any experience in your life, he had found a good explanation for you.

Within such boundaries, certain kinds of experience flourished -- experiences that conformed to church dogma flourished, while others did not. If your experience matched the church's dogma, it could flourish; if it did not match, it was not permitted.

In your present society, however, there is no such overall authority. The individual must make his or her own way through a barrage of differing value systems, and make decisions. That is something a person living in an age when sons followed their fathers' trades, or when marriages were arranged, could never have imagined.

This includes our ancient times as well; in ancient times marriages were decided by parents, and neither the man nor the woman had any choice -- the parents' command already determined whom you would marry. So whether in China or abroad, it was the same in that era. In such an environment, things were relatively simple for us: there was nothing much to choose. What knowledge you should learn, what books you should read, how your future life should proceed -- all of it was already prescribed. How men should be, how women should be; if you were a woman and wanted to do something, you could not do it; you were not allowed to. Until just over a hundred years ago, women in many countries still did not have the right to vote; even in the United States, which today claims to be so free and democratic, women have had the right to vote for only a very short time. So in that era everything was prescribed: behavior patterns, deportment, including all your life experiences and encounters -- which ones were allowed and which ones were not.

But in modern society everything has completely changed: so many beliefs, so much knowledge; knowledge of body, mind, and spirit alone emerges endlessly, and beliefs spanning different worlds and different fields also emerge endlessly. Buddhism alone still has at least several dozen active schools today; other religions are the same -- Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism originally came from the same lineage but have split apart; Islam goes without saying, divided into Shia and Sunni, and the two look at each other with great displeasure, even though they clearly come from the same Islam, and within them there are still many smaller sects, and there are also fundamentalist factions. The three major religions are all like this, not to mention the others. So people face a great many choices.

Your experience, therefore, is vastly different from that of your medieval forebears. You can no longer take for granted the subjective attitudes of your present lives, the kinds and qualities of social intercourse that differ from those of the past.

We are now completely different from the past, but we have not yet realized it -- along with the development of human society, a tremendous change has already taken place, yet we have not yet noticed that we are already very different from the people of that era.

Christianity, with all its mistakes, had at its best the gift of telling each person the ultimate meaning of life.

It gave your life a meaning: on the final day of the last judgment, based on whether you had done good or bad deeds, God would render a judgment. Your life then seemed to have meaning; he fixed a meaning for you, and at that time the point that life had meaning was beyond all doubt. Everyone lived for that final day of judgment. Whether you agreed or not, the whole society accepted that meaning of life -- he assigned it to you, told you that this was the meaning of your life, and you should not let your mind wander; there was no need to think.

People's dreams in that era were also different from now. In the dreams of that era there were far more metaphysical images; for example, saints and devils often appeared actively in their dreams. But overall there existed a framework of belief: saints were good, devils were bad, and we had to struggle against the devils. All experience was judged from that viewpoint.

In that regard, you have far more decisions to make.

Compared with the people of that era, we contemporary people have far more decisions to make -- because in that era there was no need to make decisions; everything had been settled for you: devils were the bad guys, God and the faction represented by God were the good guys, and it was a showdown between good and evil; justice would ultimately triumph over evil, just like watching a Hollywood movie. It was all arranged; you did not need to use your brain to think.

But we contemporary people cannot do that. We constantly have to try to find the meaning of our own lives amid mutually contradictory beliefs -- brought into our living rooms through newspapers and television (now with cell phones and the internet added; before it was through newspapers and television, and now there are also the internet and cell phones, even brought into the palms of our hands and into our beds) -- trying to find the meaning of our own lives. Amid these self-contradictory ideas, information is no longer something you can choose to listen to or not listen to as before; instead, it comes rushing at you through the internet, directly into your eyes, into your brain, into your consciousness. Whether you want to hear it or not, whether you want to see it or not, as you scroll through TikTok you will see someone telling you some philosophy of life; when you watch YouTube, one person after another will also pop up. Amid all this jumbled information, and often self-contradictory information at that, how do you determine the meaning of your own life? How do you make your life itself more meaningful? This is the greatest difficulty we modern people face compared with the people of that era.

You can think of things experimentally. You can try this or that. You can go from one religion to another, or from religion to science, or from science to religion.

In one respect, this is indeed something most people in the medieval era could not possibly have done. For example, if you lived in medieval Europe and wanted to believe in Buddhism -- where would you find it? You would never even have heard of it in your whole life. If you wanted to believe in Islam -- there was none; those people would have been treated as heretics and killed long ago. Unless you were a merchant who could travel to other parts of the world, only then might you come into contact with it. The transportation and social conditions of the time determined that you could not possibly be exposed to too many things. In other words, where you were born, where you incarnated, already determined the entire social background and religious belief of your life.

Improvements in methods of communication alone can surround you at any time with all kinds of doctrines, cultures, cults, and schools of thought.

That is certainly true, and even more so now.

In certain important respects, this means that the mechanics of experience actually become more apparent, because they are no longer hidden beneath one belief system.

Why do I want to talk about the mechanics of experience -- how experience comes about, why you have this kind of life experience -- it has now become more apparent. Because in the past it would be hidden beneath a religious or belief system: when you experienced something in life, you would say it was God's punishment or reward, and that was the end of it; there was no need to investigate what lay beneath, because the layer of religion explained everything for you and blocked the possibility of further inquiry. Today there is no such restriction; you can truly see clearly what the reason behind your experience actually is.

Your subjective choices are far greater, and so it becomes all the more necessary to place those subjective experiences into meaningful interpretations.

Since your subjective choices are far greater, whichever subjective belief or faith you choose, the matter of taking the life experiences brought by those subjective experiences and investigating the meaning behind them becomes very necessary. In the past it was not necessary; in the past everything had already been explained for you.

If you believe that you form your own reality, then you are immediately faced with a whole new group of questions.

This is also why many people today, having studied the Seth material up to now, still have a pile of questions here. For example: if you as individuals and as groups do indeed construct your own experience -- individuals construct individual reality, groups construct group reality -- then why do so many experiences appear to be negative? This is the most frequently asked question -- since our beliefs create our reality, why are there still so many negative things in this world? Do we all have such negative beliefs? Why do we not feel that we have negative beliefs? Who does not want to live a better life, who does not want more money, who does not want a happy marriage and fulfilling relationships? Why is real life not like that? When you say beliefs create reality, from this point of view I do not think it is reliable.

Do you create your own reality, or is it created for you?

This is what we often talk about in Liao-Fan's Four Lessons¹⁹: is the fate of your life a fixed fate, or is it a self-determined fate that you decide yourself? Has this universe already fixed your life, has your destiny already been determined in Framework 2, and do you have nothing to choose in this life, and so on. All these questions are questions that everyone will face.

The Medieval Filter and the Modern Filter

So in the Middle Ages, organized religion, or organized Christianity, put forward a filter of belief, and the individual looked at himself through it.

The religious viewpoint of that period was a filter, and all of us had to look at issues through this filter. The part of the self that could not be seen through the filter was almost invisible to the person. For a medieval person, no matter what he experienced in life, it always conformed to this religious filter. The ten thousand events of life experience were sorted into categories, and the summary always had to conform to the religious norms of the time: this category was good, that category was bad. He had only this one angle from which to view issues—and not just him, everyone viewed issues this way. So all difficulties were punishments or warnings sent by God. The mechanism of experience was hidden behind this filter; you could not see how experience actually worked, because he replaced all the causes behind experience with God's warnings and punishments: what was good was God's reward to you, and what was bad was God's warning to you.

Now, Darwin and Freud, together they have formed a different filter. Only when experience has passed through this filter can it be accepted or seen.

They are different from the medieval belief system. He uses the new scientific filter—we modern people only accept things that have been filtered through this scientific filter; things that the scientific filter cannot acknowledge are not acknowledged.

If Christianity saw man as ruined by original sin, then Darwin and Freud see man as part of a flawed species, in which the life of the individual exists unstably, at any moment subject to the needs of the species, with mere survival as the primary goal, yet a survival without meaning.

Seth does not use foul language; he is very civilized, but his words are sharp. According to the scientific viewpoint, every one of us is flawed—because we are the product of natural selection, of the process of survival of the fittest, not a perfect thing. Each of our lives is unstable: how long we live, whether we die young, whether we can live long or die early—all of it seems uncertain, determined by disease, accidents, war, natural disasters, and all sorts of things, completely beyond human control. At any moment subject to the needs of the species: when human civilization needs war, we have to go to war; when human civilization needs us to reproduce, we have to go have children. It seems that we as individuals have no meaning—the meaning of each of us is only for the continuation of the human race. According to what scientists tell us, apart from reproduction, we have no other meaning.

So from the scientific angle, mere survival is the only goal, and it is a survival without meaning, because no meaning can be found. Ask the mainstream media today what the meaning of human life is—they cannot find it, they really cannot. I have told this story many times, and I will tell it again: back when Bi Shumin was giving a lecture at a university, a student passed her a note saying, Teacher Bi Shumin, can you tell us one thing in practical terms—what on earth is the meaning of life? She was already in her forties, and the student was only in his early twenties, just starting university. The student said, do not beat around the bush with me, just tell us straight. Bi Shumin received the note and was silent for a long time, but in the end she bravely and truthfully faced those university students—she said life really has no meaning. Looking at my life today in my forties, after thinking it over again and again, life really has no meaning, but we have to find a meaning for our own lives. What she meant was: there is still no meaning, but find a meaning for yourself, find something to enjoy. Of course, for a contemporary person living under such a belief system, her answer was already a fairly good one, but from her own understanding, she truly could not find the meaning of our existence.

So the greatness of the psyche was ignored. The sense of belonging between the individual and nature was also eroded, because it seemed as though humanity needed to sacrifice nature in order to live.

We were taught from childhood that in order to live we have to obtain resources from nature. Everyone holds this view—that our relationship with nature is one of using and being used as a resource. A couple of days ago I saw a book they wrote—many people are writing such books, books that many people praise highly—all of them believe that human energy will be exhausted within some number of years: oil and natural gas will be gone in a few more decades; human water resources will be polluted to depletion; the future world of humanity will be a world without water, without energy, a cold and desolate future world. We humans obtain resources from nature for the sake of human reproduction—that is what our scientists tell us. So our relationship with nature is always this kind of relationship: if we want to develop, we will pollute the environment and use nature's resources. The oil and natural gas we use today are all the result of nature's sedimentation over hundreds of millions or billions of years, yet we have used them up in just over a hundred years—so what will we use after that? This is the question everyone asks.

A person's greatest dream or deepest fear became the result of a glandular imbalance or a psychosis caused by childhood trauma.

Here Seth again employs his ability and skill for sarcasm—I think this is truly profound, a level unmatched by anyone. According to scientists, the reason a person has the greatest dream is because of an imbalance in his hormone secretion; if a person has a deep fear, according to Freud, it is the result of a psychosis caused by your childhood trauma. Seth uses these two examples to satirize how we view human beings from the scientific angle: if you strip away all the disguises and look underneath, this is what it is. We should not find it funny—if you carefully savor the mainstream society of our time, this is exactly how it views people.

Yet within these beliefs, each individual is seeking a framework in which his life has meaning.

Interesting, is it not? We humans cannot accept the fact that our lives have no meaning. He is always seeking the meaning of life, seeking a purpose that can inspire people to act—why do we do things? Surely we do them because they have meaning. Then he seeks a drama in which individual actions have importance. What this drama means is: we want to find a storyline, find a grand chapter of history, place ourselves within the great background of history, and then our actions will have important significance for the advancement of history. People want to find that something bigger than himself—to find the existence of something larger than himself.

This reality is indeed like this. No matter the situation, sooner or later a person will consider this question. I considered it around the second year of junior high: as a human species, why exactly do we live, and what is the meaning of the human species' existence? The question I asked at the time was, do not talk about individuals—individual purposes vary, each person is for this or for that—I wanted to ask, for a human being, for the existence of a species, what is the consciousness of the human species? I did not find an answer at the time. I discussed it with a classmate named Zhao Xidong for a long time, about a month or two, and in the end the conclusion we reached was very interesting: the meaning of human existence is to want to know what the meaning of human existence is. Is that not nonsense? But at that time, in junior high, that was the best result we could come up with. We were very pleased with ourselves for a long time, thinking we had found the truth of the world, found the ultimate conclusion about the meaning of human existence. But we also knew that this answer was not an answer at all—this answer was just a question—you turned the question into the answer. But the wisdom and understanding of our era could only remain at that level.

I tell this example not to say that I thought about this question earlier than others, but to say: this question appears in every person's life. When it appears is uncertain, but everyone will ask it—what is the meaning of your own life. This is a question you cannot avoid. You can muddle through life, you can be indifferent to everything.

Life has intellectual values and emotional values.

Intellectual means rational—we can rationally feel the value of life, the locus of life's meaning; but emotionally we also need to feel this value, and sometimes there is an emotional need, we have an emotional need, and that must be satisfied. No matter how we judge it in theory, we must also find this meaning emotionally. Merely recognizing it rationally is not enough—others tell you that in theory we should have such and such meaning, but that is not enough; we must emotionally obtain this need for life's value and meaning, and it must be satisfied emotionally.

So you will discover a certain problem: why are churches and other religions so deeply rooted in people's hearts and so widespread? Think about it carefully—do they not satisfy, at this level, humanity's emotional need for life's meaning and life's value? Within religious organizations, this need is well cared for and resolved. Now you understand why they can be so prevalent and widespread.

The church provided a cosmic drama in which even the life of a sinner had value.

Within this grand cosmic background, even a sinner has value: we are all sinners, and our lives still have value—even if only to demonstrate God's mercy. We are sinners, and God forgives us all; through this matter it can be shown how magnanimous God's mercy is. It seems that apart from this, nothing else has been found. So once again you can see Seth's skill at sarcasm—every paragraph of his carries sarcasm. But regardless, the church does an excellent job of caring for the emotional needs of individuals regarding life's value and life's meaning; it accepts all kinds of people.

But in your society, the lack and lifelessness of the psychic environment often leads to rebellion.

We actually often rebel—people take action to bring meaning and drama into their lives, even though rationally they refuse to understand the reasons behind it. The church gave you a historical or cosmic drama: God created man, and then sent his son to remove man's original sin. Why does man have original sin? Because Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil²⁰; the Bible has a whole pile of stories. But there are many flaws in the Bible stories; we will not go into them—if you are interested, you can watch Lao Gao's two episodes specifically about this disclosure regarding God, including that Lilith: the Bible says God created man and woman, and later says Eve was created from Adam's rib, so from the surface text it can be proven that the woman created at that time was not Eve—that woman was also directly created by God. And why Eve later had to be created from Adam's rib is very interesting. The Bible has ancient mysteries in it; we will not explore this issue.

So the church gave you a grand cosmology. Seth calls it a cosmic drama, because it is like a storyline: God created man by divine gift, sent his own child to remove your original sin, and used his own death to wash away your sins—is this not like a play such as Hamlet? Of course the plot is different, but the idea is similar: is it not like a play being performed? It is just that its play is somewhat grander, touching on the creation of the universe and the birth of humanity, but it is still a play. The meaning of your life has its own role within this cosmic play: you are a sinner, waiting to be washed clean, and then to demonstrate God's mercy. Your role is passerby A, passerby B, or an extra; you are never the protagonist, you are not even a supporting character—you are just an extra. The protagonist is always God and his child, and the gods. The meaning of your existence is one thing: to demonstrate God's mercy. That is the summary of the entire play. If you want to find the meaning of your life, the meaning of life is right here—whether you accept it or not, you accept it. That is what Christianity tells you.

Then, in our real society, without the coercive system of the Middle Ages or the era when Christianity was dominant, things became open, and we could choose freely. But what harm does this openness bring? It is that our psyche has actually become lacking in vitality. Why lacking in vitality? Compared with church people—whether they have been brainwashed or persuaded or influenced by such a play—they truly accept the values or life meaning that others gave them. Once they accept it, their lives become very meaningful and full of energy. But we modern people do not have this: we do not know what to believe, nor what we should believe. There are so many things to believe in—various religions, various faiths, various knowledge, and science. Remember, science is also a belief. All these things are mixed together; what exactly should we believe? So we have become impoverished—we are more impoverished than the people of that era. That era was relatively foolish and had no choices, but people were indoctrinated with a set of values, and they accepted it. We do not have that—this is our fortune, and also our misfortune; the misfortune is that we have to seek it ourselves.

So in this psychic environment of lack and lifelessness, we often fall into rebellion: we use action to bring meaning and drama into our lives—through action we practice the meaning of our lives, through action we perform this drama in our lives, which is to say we assign meaning to our own lives. But then, rationally we refuse to understand the reasons behind it. If I speak from a higher vantage point, you may understand better: we modern people, because of the diversity and complexity of beliefs, do not know which one to choose; unlike medieval people who were so singular, this leads us to try things out ourselves in actual action—taking action means trying things out ourselves, practicing one belief, and then practicing another. Through action, we try out various different meanings, feel each one, and see which one fits us. Each belief is a subjective world; it gives you a subjective worldview. The feelings about life that these bring—we do not delve into the meaning behind them; we just bring them in, bring them into life to feel them—to put it bluntly, we force a meaning of life onto ourselves. Rationally we refuse to understand the reasons behind it. What reasons? The lack and lifelessness of your psychic environment. You rarely explore why you do this.

Seth said to take a break, and returned to the book at 9:59. Jane was not too surprised that Seth returned to writing this book, because she had already thought before the session that Seth would do this. Still, she was quite nervous; although it seemed a bit foolish, she did not know whether she could do it after such a long interval. But this material was completely unlike what she thought she would get; she found it hard to believe—the last session for writing the book had been more than nine months earlier.

Fate Replaced God

During the break, Jane shared some reflections. Then at 10:07 the session continued.

For most people, after God walked out the window, fate took His place.

When God could no longer be the main object of his belief, what became the main object of his belief? Fate. Fate became the main object, and willpower also became eroded.

In a country without Christianity, such as ancient China, because it never had this process with God, it went straight to fate -- fate has always held the primary position for Chinese people. Religious belief has never become a mainstream force in China. Although Buddhism was once very prevalent, Taoism was once very prevalent, and Islam was also very prevalent during certain periods. But no matter what, across the land of China and throughout five thousand years of human civilization, religion has only played a certain role and has never held a dominant position. This is the most fundamental difference between China and other countries: in other countries, when you look through history, no matter which era of civilization and development, religion has always played an extremely important role -- whether Egypt, the Roman Empire, Babylon, or other vanished civilizations, religious and sacrificial activities all became a central part of their societies, and in many periods even took the form of a merging of church and state.

But in Chinese civilization this did not happen. Buddhism was once fairly prevalent for a period, but it was suppressed by the imperial power of the time. Some emperors believed in Buddhism and promoted it to an extreme degree, and after such promotion Buddhism would grow powerful. At that time, Buddhists did not need to work -- unlike now, when everyone has to go work the fields, farming and harvesting like peasants; but once you believed in Buddhism and became a monk, you no longer needed to work, and then people would support you. For example, these several villages had to support this temple, and that area had to support another. Eventually temples became more and more numerous. With thousands upon thousands of temples across the country, the state could no longer collect taxes, because everything was being given to the temples. Monks also became more and more numerous -- nobody wanted to go work; hiding away in a monastery chanting sutras and doing one's practice was much better. It was certainly better than toiling under the sun, scratching food out of the dirt, and besides, one was fed and clothed without worry, supported until death. So more and more people became monks. Later, several anti-Buddhist campaigns occurred: the emperor became enraged and said Buddhism had become something riding on top of our heads, this cannot stand, destroy it -- forcing these monks to return to lay life and demolishing the temples. So in its later period, Buddhism reached a consensus, an understanding with the ruling class: we will never threaten your rule, we will never engage in politics or contend with the state for power, we only ask that the ruling class show us leniency. This is also the main reason Buddhism has continued unbroken in China yet never became dominant -- it was suppressed by successive dynasties: you may develop, but you may not go too far; if you go too far, I will suppress you.

But in other historical nations and civilizations, this kind of thing happened frequently. Often a religion would become an institution that replaced the government in a country or region, or government and religion would merge together. Even in America today -- look at whom the president swears his oath to? To God. He places his hand on the Bible, on the very Bible Lincoln used²¹, and takes the oath. A so-called democratic country, even though it firmly resists the merging of church and state and insists that politics and religion be separate, in its concrete actions it promotes religion everywhere.

So what Seth is saying is: for most people, when God is no longer in your belief system, fate becomes your belief, and willpower becomes eroded. Why is willpower eroded? Because you no longer have a firm belief, because fate is uncertain. Look at how a person can achieve success in this life -- it depends on whether his willpower is firm enough and how he responds to the blows of fate. So nowadays people often talk about a person's adversity quotient -- the adversity quotient is one's emotional intelligence when facing the blows of fate, when in adverse circumstances. The stronger a person's adversity quotient, the more likely he is to achieve success; that is, the stronger the willpower, the easier it is to succeed.

Since a person's characteristics, potentials, and defects are largely seen as chance occurrences beyond his control.

Whatever characteristics or special talents a person has, it all depends on his odds; potential, we think, is inherited -- for example, whether this person has artistic talent or any special abilities; defects are all the result of unconscious mechanisms. At the same time, if you regard a person's characteristics, potentials, and defects all as things beyond control -- chance you cannot control, heredity you cannot control, the unconscious you cannot control -- then he can neither take pride in personal achievement nor be blamed for failure. What is there to be proud of in your achievements? Aren't they all caused by your characteristics, potentials, and defects? You have fewer defects, better potential, superior characteristics -- aren't these all caused by things beyond your control? Since you cannot take pride in success, failure is not your fault either; it is all caused by various factors.

Figuratively speaking, the devil walked into a place. Therefore many of the devil's mischievous qualities and evil characteristics were assigned to the unconscious.

It is as if the devil entered an underground organization. We would say the devil entered the human unconscious, and within the human unconscious there is nothing but these evil things.

Man is seen as something divided against himself and at odds with himself.

We modern people regard ourselves as divided: we have a conscious puppet, resting uneasily atop an unconscious bestial nature. This bestial nature may erupt at any time, and in what form it erupts depends on the person's willpower -- testing whether he can control his own bestial nature.

He believes himself to be a city predetermined by heredity and early environment, so that it seems he is forever necessarily ignorant of his own true motives.

Since I have been determined by my environment and my genes, what exactly should I do? I do not even know what my motives are for doing these things. It seems that being born into such a family, this is simply my life path -- we often talk about the solidification of social classes and so on, meaning it has already been fixed; living in such an environment, you can only be this way.

He is not only set against himself, but also sees himself as part of a mechanical universe that does not care about people.

From the perspective of scientists, our universe is a mechanical one, in which life -- and then human beings -- arose under certain random probabilities. It does not care about people at all. We humans are just a part of this impersonal universe. It is a universe lacking purpose, lacking intent, indifferent to the individual, caring only about the survival of the species. Such a universe has no purpose and no intent; it is a dead, mechanical, lifeless universe. Living within it, we can only consider the continuation of humanity -- the purpose of our living is simply to allow humanity to continue in this universe a little longer.

That is truly a strange world.

Seth continued:

In many respects, it is also a new world.

What he means is: in certain respects, from certain angles, it is a new world -- but do you really understand that it is a new world? It is not. But for some people, or from certain angles, just treat it as a new world. Because it is the first world -- in many respects, do not be too literal -- it is a new world in which a large proportion of humanity believes they are isolated from nature and from God, an existence independent of the natural world and the universe.

The sublime and the great are no longer recognized as qualities of the soul.

This is very interesting. This is worse than religion -- no matter whether Christianity or otherwise, it at least always emphasized that human beings have souls, and emphasized the sublime and great attributes of the human soul, acknowledging that we are children of God and possess something as sublime and great as God. Science has lost even this. Indeed, for many people, the very concept of the soul has become unfashionable -- when we discuss the soul, this concept is not fashionable at all; it has been talked about for thousands of years, it is embarrassing and outdated. The moment we mention anything about the soul, someone says you are talking about outdated religion, still discussing the soul.

Seth here uses the words soul and psyche as the same word -- psyche you can understand as spirituality, it does not matter.

The psyche, in seeking to express its vitality, its purpose, and its exuberance, emerges more and more. It seeks new frameworks in which to express itself, finally overflowing into a subjective reality at the edges of barren belief.

When the soul seeks to express its vitality, its purpose, and its exuberance, it emerges from this world. It seeks a new framework, and within this framework it seeks its own meaning, purpose, and value, expressing its own subjective reality -- because it is inherently a subjective reality. It overflows at the edges of barren belief. What does barren belief refer to? It refers to the lack of belief in people today -- we only believe in science, and apart from science we believe in nothing. This kind of belief is itself barren. Why call it barren? As was said earlier, it has made people meaningless, made the universe and nature entirely meaningless, made all of living meaningless -- apart from reproduction there is no meaning at all. Is this not a barren belief?

But your psyche will not stop seeking expression just because of your barren beliefs. It is always seeking expression, seeking to manifest its vitality, always searching for its purpose, always manifesting exuberance. In this process of seeking, it overflows from your barren beliefs into a subjective reality -- the psyche discovers itself to be a subjective existence, recognizes its own existence, and recognizes the meaning of its own existence.

Of course the psyche expresses itself through action, but behind it carries the impetus from which life springs.

Our spirituality must express itself through action -- without action it cannot express itself. You say, I am all mental activity, I sit there meditating, I have reached some high state, but you have not expressed yourself in action -- that is wrong, that is not right. You came into the three-dimensional world precisely to manifest through action that inner vitality, that exuberance. You did not come into the three-dimensional world to pursue purely spiritual things; you must combine spirituality with your action. Do not confuse this. Your spirituality must express itself through your action, but behind it carries the impetus from which life springs -- that is, the impetus from the source of life. This impetus is extremely powerful; you must express yourself through action. You say, can I not express it? No, because this impetus is pushing you from behind; you cannot help but express it, cannot help but manifest it, cannot help but realize certain things in your life.

And it seeks a personal fulfillment, and automatically attempts to produce a fruitful and creative social climate and civilization.

The psyche -- our inner spiritual world -- automatically attempts to produce an abundant, fruitful, and creative social climate and civilization. In other words, the human civilization we have today and the achievements we have made are by no means accidental; there is an inner impetus at work here.

This psyche projects its desires outward onto our physical world, wanting to realize its potential through private experience and social contact.

It projects its desires outward, onto the physical world. It wants to realize the potential of this psyche through private experience (individual experience) and social contact (social experience, that is, collective experience). And in such a way that the potential of others can also be encouraged -- not only can it manifest its own inner potential, but it can also inspire the potential of others.

It seeks to give flesh to its dreams.

It wants to give flesh to its dreams, to make the dreams come alive and come true.

And when these find no response in social life, it will still make personal expression in a private religion of its own.

Very interesting, isn't it? When in real life these ideas receive no response -- when others treat him as a fool or a madman -- he will not give up. You say, then he should just go with the flow? No. This person's conscious pursuit can only move upward; it cannot retreat. Unless he has never become aware, then he can keep living that way; but once he becomes aware -- whether someone awakened him, or one day he read some article, or one day he heard one of my explanations, or he read some inspirational article, whatever it may be -- as long as his awareness has reached a higher level, he cannot go back. He can no longer accept that kind of muddled, drowsy life. This is a very interesting thing.

Then what does he do? In society there is no one who speaks his language, he cannot find a kindred spirit, cannot find a civic group -- because at this point there is no religion anymore, and he no longer believes in traditional religions like Christianity; those things can no longer satisfy him. But he also cannot find a larger group to support him. What does he do then? He starts to create his own private religion -- living within his own understanding. You will see many people who are like this: they are no longer willing to communicate with others.

Basically, man attempts to see the meaning of his life through religion.

Mark this sentence as a key point. He establishes a structure built upon deep psychological knowledge. No matter what name it is given, it represents the individual, and represents a connection between heaven, man, and the universe. A person does not want to admit that his life is meaningless; he wants to seek this meaning -- whether it is a worldly meaning, making money, becoming famous, and so on; if he can accept that, then that is also a kind of meaning. But one day he wakes up and realizes these things are meaningless, and then he will seek true meaning. But no matter what, he must seek. This process of seeking is about establishing a psychological structure, the purpose of which is to connect himself with the universe, so that he does not feel like an orphan whose life is utterly meaningless. This is a basic human need.

At this point, man basically achieves this through religion. If there is no religion he can accept, he creates a private religion of his own, and through this private religion he views the world and sees the meaning of his own life.

Session 832 began on Monday, January 29, 1979, at 9:11 p.m. Since Jane had held Session 831 two weeks earlier, she and Rob had been busy with publishing matters, and did not finish until the 24th. The next day, Jane, in a typical burst of inspiration, began writing her third book about Oversoul Seven -- The Oversoul Seven and the Museum of Time²². Tonight's session was about the same length as recent ones, around an hour and a half including the break, but Seth gave only the short opening portion to this book.

The Meaning of Life and the Drama of the Psyche

Seth talks about how in your society, it is generally believed that if a person wants to be productive, happy, or satisfied, then he must have a formal occupation, a proper job, a family, or intimate relationships, or good health, and a sense of belonging. This is the standard configuration of a successful person in today's society. Let us not first discuss whether this standard configuration is reasonable or not; let us first say that it is a widespread social belief. Better social plans, more employment opportunities, health care programs, urban projects, are often thought to be the methods that can bring satisfaction to the masses. This is a consensus in today's society.

Seldom do individuals speak of personal feelings, and of the innate need for life to have purpose and meaning.

We have taken care of all the things mentioned before, but very few people talk about personal feelings, and the innate need for life to have purpose and meaning. This is something we innately need, yet very few people take care of it. We all think that these external things are more important. Very few people speak of that innate need for drama -- that is, the meaning of life, an inner drama of the psyche. In it one finds the value and meaning of life, and a person can feel a purpose greater than himself, and that he himself is a part of this greater purpose.

Session 832

Within the human heart there is a need, a need to feel and express heroic impulses.

And what is very interesting is that people have an inner need to express heroic impulses. Look at why those Hollywood blockbusters sell so well, not just in America but all over the world, because they satisfy this need, the impulse to want to be a hero.

His true instincts lead him spontaneously to have a desire to improve the quality of his own life and that of others.

He does not only look after himself, but also others. He must see himself as a force in the world, an effective force placed within the macrocosm, and he wants to change this world, to make it better.

Seth says animals also dramatize; they possess emotions and feel themselves to be part of the drama of the seasons, and in that sense they are indeed full of vitality. Animals have the same need, but the drama of animals is not elsewhere; it is in the seasons. Animals identify themselves as part of the drama of the seasons. If you regard the changing four seasons as a play, spring as the play of spring, summer as the play of summer, then animals are the important characters within it.

The ever-changing natural world is so richly touched by animals that nature is to animals what cultural structures and civilization are to you.

He makes a very vivid analogy: nature is to animals what our civilization or culture is to us human beings. Our civilization and culture are also ever-changing, like nature; they nourish us, and we also emerge from them. We both contribute to nature and enrich it, and we also enrich our civilization and culture, and culture and civilization in turn influence us in return. This is a very subtle relationship.

In an indescribable way, they respond to the rich subtle differences of nature.

Animals respond to all kinds of changes in climate, temperature, humidity, pressure, and wind, to these subtle differences, but Seth says we cannot describe that way.

Their civilization, therefore, is built up through an interweaving of sense data that you cannot possibly perceive.

The civilization of animals is built up through an interweaving of sense data that human beings cannot perceive, mutually reflecting with nature, producing the animals' own civilization, in quotation marks, which cannot be mentioned in the same breath as our human civilization; it is not the same kind of thing.

Animals know, in a way you cannot, that their individual existence has a direct impact upon the nature of reality.

Animals know that they have a direct impact upon nature and upon this world, but by what means they know it, we do not know. These animals and nature are an alliance; they are one.

An individual can possess wealth and health, can enjoy satisfying relationships, even satisfying work, and yet live an empty life lacking what I call that kind of drama.

After a person has satisfied these material conditions, including emotions and feelings, all of which can be satisfied, he will still have a kind of hollow life. Unless you feel that life itself has meaning, every person's life necessarily seems meaningless, and all love and beauty only end in decay. Indeed, there are very, very many people like this.

When you believe that the universe came about by accident, when you think you are a member of a species that came about by accident, then individual life seems to lose its meaning.

When you are part of the human species, and this species is itself an accident of the universe, then as one member of it you have no meaning either. And events may seem very chaotic; you cannot find your own meaning.

Disasters believed to stem from the wrath of a God can at least be understood within that framework.

From a religious perspective, blaming natural disasters on God, treating them as God's punishment upon us, this we can still understand; but this kind of argument originating from science leaves people utterly bewildered. So why is it that science has now developed for so many years, three hundred years, and yet religion, especially Christianity, still exists so deeply rooted? Because science cannot solve those fundamental problems. If you take away their religious faith, they collapse even more, so they would rather cling to a Christianity that has already been superseded and is outdated, holding on desperately and unable to let go, because after letting go even this is gone. There is nothing new that can replace it and satisfy their sense of life's meaning, because science only makes them more confused.

But many of you live in a subjective world in which the events of life seem to have no particular reason, or sometimes their occurrence seems to be exactly the opposite of your wishes.

We live in a subjective world, but the things that happen in it seem to occur without cause or reason. For example, whom you will meet tomorrow, you have no idea at all. And many things happen exactly opposite to your wishes. You want to be wealthy, but life has not made you wealthy; you want a happy marriage, but the marriage is not happy. Living in a subjective world, one would think this world should be created according to your will, so why is it the opposite? This is very interesting.

When people feel powerless, when people feel their lives have been robbed of meaning, what kind of events can they form?

When life has been stripped of meaning, what is there left to do in a subjective world? If all of life is meaningless, then it would be better to have an objective, passive world, where everything happens like accidents and chance, and we simply accept the arrangement of fate. So this is the very subtle point: if you want to master a subjective world, when you believe that your reality is created by your beliefs, then you must be living in a meaningful subjective world; otherwise everything you do is meaningless, and you have no motivation to do it. And what is the mechanism behind those events? Since you have no motivation, and your life has no meaning, why are those things still happening? Why does this world have so many strange and varied things every day? Then why do events happen at all? He uses rhetorical questions to stimulate you.

Session 833

The Rise of "Isms" and the Loss of Meaning

Session 833 began on Wednesday, January 31, 1979, at 9:21 p.m. Jane had recently been happily working on the third book of her Oversoul Seven adventures, and then Seth began introducing this book.

It is only when man cannot find a purpose to live by that he will die for an "ism."

Here "an ism" does not refer to one particular ideology; any ism will do. In other words, when does a person come to believe in an ism? It is when he cannot go on living. This "cannot go on living" is not only about the material side -- when there is no food or drink and survival itself is threatened, you only need to give him a little hope and he will follow you. The second case is when there is no material lack, or even great abundance, but he still cannot find a reason to go on living. He will also believe in some ism, but he will not die for it.

And when the world seems empty of meaning, then such persons will, through their manner of death, make some statement.

When these people feel that life is inherently meaningless and that there is nothing left to live for, they are willing to die for this ism, making a final stand through their death. Seth said he would soon return to discuss these isms -- because he wanted to use the Jonestown incident to discuss how a mass event takes shape and how a tragedy is born. Here he did not continue to elaborate, only saying that he would come back to discuss the relationship between these isms and whether a person feels that life has meaning.

The Newspaper Example: How Psychological Intent Works

Let us consider a very simple action for the moment. This example is very important. The principle he is talking about is very plain, but very important. This session actually echoes what was said earlier: people live in a subjective world, and the surrounding world should be as we wish it to be, so why are there still so many unsatisfactory things in life? Whether personal or collective, where do all the negative things we see come from? Since we believe that reality is created by our own beliefs, why would we still create so many negative things? The content later in this session is actually all explaining that.

You want to walk across the room to get a newspaper. The purpose is simple enough and very direct. Even though you are not consciously aware of the inner bodily mechanisms involved, the purpose automatically moves your body forward in the appropriate manner. You do not imagine that there will be obstacles or obstructions in your way, such as accidents, fate, or design, or extra pieces of furniture placed in your path. You walk a simple straight line in the correct direction, and the action is meaningful because it is something you want to do.

Take going to the next room to get a newspaper as an example. This matter is very simple. Let us set aside for now the involvement of your inner bones, muscles, blood vessels, and cells that the intention sets in motion; that is not the question under discussion. Let us just talk about such a simple action. When you imagine it, you just go over and get it directly. You do not think: I am going to get this newspaper, but what if there is a box blocking my way, what if there is a hole in the floor and I fall in, what if a wire falls down and electrocutes me, what if the ceiling fan was not installed securely and falls and slices my head. You do not think about these things. You simply walk the most direct straight line. That is a fact.

He says, however, that some purposes are not so easy to describe. They are a kind of psychological intention, a desire to be fulfilled that is not so easy to categorize. For example, I want to be happy. Is that not far more complicated than getting a newspaper? For example, I want life to be meaningful. Is that not also far more complicated?

A person experiences an intensely emotional ambition, desire, and likes and dislikes, and at the same time he has intellectual beliefs about himself, his feelings, and the world, a kind of rational thought.

A person is an extremely emotional creature. When he has great ambitions, they carry strong emotion; desires are also emotion; likes and dislikes are also emotion. What you like and what you dislike are all emotion. At the same time, he has certain intellectual beliefs about himself, about his feelings, and about the world, certain rational cognitions.

These intellectual beliefs are the result of training.

These cognitions you have about yourself, your feelings, and the world are the result of long-term training from childhood onward, and also the result of education and social conditioning. You use your mind in the way you were taught to use it, the way others taught you. However you were taught from childhood, that is how you use it.

A person may want to become famous, and also possess certain abilities he wants to develop. He sings well, has athletic talent, or is very good at trading stocks, and these indeed will bring him the fame he wants.

And that indeed will bring him some of the fame he wants.

But such a person may believe that fame and fortune lead to unhappiness, debauchery, or misfortune in some other way. He wants to be famous, but he also knows that fame may bring unhappiness. He will find that none of these celebrities' marriages last from beginning to end; they have all been divorced several times, going round and round. The entertainment world is a mess, and it is full of celebrities. So he has a feeling that becoming famous seems to lead to a lot of unhappy things as well. Debauchery goes without saying; just look at the material. And then there is drug use; drug use among entertainment celebrities is a very common phenomenon. Therefore he has one clear purpose: to use his abilities to win fame. But another rather opposite thought is to avoid becoming famous. He only wants the benefits of fame, not the burdens that come with it. He only wants the good, not the bad. So you can see that there is actually a certain inner conflict within him.

Some people want to marry, have children, and live a family life, and they also possess excellent conditions for being parents; their age and environment all allow it. But among these people, some are convinced that love may be wrong, that there may be no true love in this world, that it is all value exchange. Or they believe that sex is degrading, that sex itself is not good. Or they believe that children are a sign that one's youth is over, that having children means getting old. So such people will find that, for no apparent reason, they break off a good relationship with the opposite sex, or force the other person to break up with them. Here there are two clear goals, yet they are enemies of each other: one is to marry, have children, and start a family; the other tells oneself that love is unreliable, that marriage is the grave of love, and that having children means getting old. The more obvious manifestation of this phenomenon nowadays is that in big cities people are getting married later and later, and many people choose not to marry. In some Western countries, such as some Northern European countries, not marrying has become a mainstream phenomenon; most people do not marry. They acknowledge this kind of intimate relationship, but they are unwilling to marry. All sorts of factors lead to this result. The deep reason is that he has two goals: one is to get married, and one is not to get married.

Those who believe their lives have ultimate meaning can withstand this pressure.

Those who believe that life is meaningful, that there is a greater meaning they themselves do not know, even a meaning greater than themselves, can withstand this pressure: the negative things that come with fame, the negative things that come with starting a family. Often such dilemmas and other similar problems have a rather appropriate solution.

As for those who believe that life itself has little meaning, they will be disappointed, they will be conflicted, they will feel powerless, and this may begin to cause an unfortunate erosion of their personality.

Once such people begin, they will certainly begin to imagine obstacles in their path. Just as any person who wants to walk to the table at the other end of the room to get a newspaper will also imagine physical obstacles suddenly being placed between him and the table. What he means is this: when you go to get a newspaper, you do not think that anything unexpected will happen along the way, because the goal is simple enough and the path is clear enough. You feel there are no obstacles in between; it is a trivial matter. But when you set the goal a little farther away and a little more complicated, such as getting married, taking a wife and having children, or getting married as a woman, then you are in trouble. You will certainly place many obstacles and many stumbling blocks along the way. And will these stumbling blocks become real? Yes, they will. Have not the previous sessions been saying this all along? Whatever you imagine, that thing becomes real. Your life and your experiences are all imagined. You imagine that there are so many stumbling blocks on this road, and these stumbling blocks all appear. When you believe that women are all materialistic, only wanting houses and cars, then the women you meet will all be like that. When you believe that men are all jerks, unreliable, and fickle, then the ones you meet will all be jerks. Whatever you believe, that is what you will encounter. It is that simple. So when you go to get a newspaper, you will not encounter any obstacles along the way; it is very easy. But when you want to marry and have children, you will encounter obstacle after obstacle, and these obstacles will all become real. Why? Because you yourself set up these difficulties. Of course you will not admit it; you will say it was not me who set them up. If you can calmly think about this passage, you will understand.

When you simply want to reach a destination in space, there are maps that explain the nature of the land and the waterways. But when the destination we are talking about is a role in the psyche, there is much more to consider.

When you want to go to a physical destination, you only need to take a map and consult the roads, whether to go by land, by water, or by plane. But when what is being discussed is achieving a certain psychological role, being a good husband, a good wife, a famous actor, a renowned entrepreneur, such a psychological role, then there is much more to consider. It is not a problem that a map or a GPS can solve.

Again, when you want to move, your body is mobilized.

When you want to move, the body automatically starts moving. Your body responds to your intentions and purposes. You want to get a newspaper, to eat, to drink water, and the body automatically responds. You do not need to issue specific commands: lift your leg, take a step. None of that is needed. You only need to think about getting the newspaper in your mind, and the rest of the movements are completed in one smooth flow, automatically.

As for your psyche, you have a private inner environment. Your psychological intentions immediately mobilize your energy on a psychic level.

Just as your body is mobilized when you go to get a newspaper. When you have an intention in the world of the psyche, such as wanting to become an actor or wanting to start a family, this psychological intention automatically mobilizes your inner energy.

You have what I will call for now a thought-body. And under your intention, what immediately leaps into action is that thought-body.

Just as you have a physical material body for going to get a newspaper, in your psychic world you have a thought-body. When your thought stirs, and all your inner energy is immediately mobilized, what instantly responds and acts is that thought-body. You can imagine it as a thought-body. When you want to go to the city center, you know that the destination exists, even though the city center may be several miles or even dozens of miles away.

The Example of Finding a Partner: Units of Consciousness

When you want to find a partner, you take it for granted that a possible partner exists. You certainly assume as a matter of course that a suitable partner exists, only you do not know where he is. Many literary young people describe "meeting you at the next corner" -- you do not know where he is either, you just think maybe one day you will run into him. But you definitely believe in the existence of a possibility, even if you do not know where in space and time this man or woman is. Yet this intention of wanting to find a partner sends out units of consciousness composed of wishes and intentions -- a light-speed of consciousness, or a thread of consciousness, an invisible light-speed of consciousness. Is this not like the red thread spoken of in ancient times? The old man under the moon ties a red thread, a thread ties two people together across a thousand miles. Do not laugh at those ancient things, as if they were so foolish and backward. Think carefully about how real the depiction is -- just as Seth says, something like a thread-element, like a red thread, a thread invisible to the naked eye that ties you together. You send out such a unit of consciousness.

They are like detectives, they search the world.

This unit of consciousness is like a detective, sent out to find the other half who meets your requirements. But it detects in a way completely different from a real police detective -- it is far more advanced than a private detective, so many orders of magnitude more advanced that it cannot even be described. It is not the kind of detective that tails, secretly photographs, peeps, or eavesdrops for information; it is basically a kind of matching at the level of consciousness. They carry your characteristics in their hearts as they explore the world -- you have, so to speak, sent out many little sprites to find a partner for you, searching for the characteristics of a man or woman, the one person whose characteristics best suit your own. Remember, what it finds for you is definitely the person who best suits your characteristics.

Whatever your purpose is, the same process at the level of the psyche is involved.

Here he speaks very subtly: no matter what purpose you have in finding a partner -- some people are simply resolving physiological needs, some really want to find a soulmate, some marry and have children for worldly purposes, some are pressured by their families -- he does not care about the purpose, nor does he judge whether the purpose is lofty or base, noble or lowly; he does not consider any of that. It has nothing to do with the purpose; they all involve the same process at the level of the psyche. Apart from finding a partner, doing other things is the same, and the result is the same: something must be sent out.

Your feelings, beliefs, and intentions organize and direct your focus.

What focus? The focus of your consciousness, the focus of your attention. Your physical reality is built around it.

Your physical reality is built around it.

This sentence is very important; be sure to underline it: you build your physical world according to the focus of your consciousness. Then who determines the focus of your consciousness? Seth tells you: it is determined by three things -- your feelings, your beliefs, your intentions. These three work together to determine what you pay attention to and where you place your focus. Now you should understand -- if you want to create your world or change your world, you must change your focus; if you want to change your focus, you must change your feelings, change your beliefs, change your intentions.

This process has perfect spontaneity and order.

You do not need to worry about how this process is accomplished; it happens automatically, spontaneously, and you do not need to direct it. It is like picking up a newspaper and the newspaper is in your hand. It also carries an order; it cannot be chaotic, cannot fall into disorder.

A World Organized by Belief

For example, if you believe that the world is full of evil, then you will pick out from normal sense data those facts that confirm or verify your belief. But beyond that, on other levels, you also organize your mental events in such a way that you attract those events that will confirm your belief.

When you believe the world is full of evil, on the physical level, in your sense data -- the newspapers you read, the news you watch, the TikTok, the YouTube -- what you see are all those facts full of evil, and your senses will bring you these things. But it is not only that you see more of these things to confirm your ideas; it will also organize your mental world in such a way as to believe the world is evil: it is directing your focus of consciousness, directing your mental world, focusing your consciousness on all these bad, evil, criminal things.

Then it will cause you to attract those evil things to happen. This is what you need to understand: the emotional energy units that make up this world -- that is, EE units, emotional energy -- they attract like to like, and this is their basic property. Good emotions attract good things, bad emotions attract bad things. Why is this so? I can only tell you that like attracts like. The principle by which this three-dimensional world is constructed is constructed in just this way; it is resonance-based attraction, and "things of a kind gather together, people of a kind form groups" speaks to the same principle. This is explaining it to you from the physical level. Why is it that when I focus on some evil things, those bad things will happen in my life? The mechanism by which this happens has been explained to you from the root: identical units of consciousness, energy units, EE units -- they attract one another. Once it has organized your mental world, it will begin to manifest in your physical world. Is not your physical world entirely determined by your mental world? Have we not been discussing this principle in the previous sessions? The things you imagine, the things you focus on, will eventually become the things in your reality. The action it uses, "attract," is the principle of like attracting like that I just mentioned -- not the way humans have opposite sexes attracting; in this kind of matter, it is like attracting like. So you will keep encountering that kind of thing, and it seems so strange. Some people, when things go smoothly, they keep going smoothly; some people, when they fall, they keep falling -- because their belief is one of falling, so they keep falling.

The Death of Young People

Next Seth talks about the subject of death.

Just as birth is a part of you, so is death. The importance of death varies with the individual. Birth is a part of you, and death is a part of you, and in a certain way, in any given life, death is your last important opportunity in that life.

In any given life of yours, death is the last life you can live in this physical world. In other words, the way you die, how you die, becomes the last action and the last gesture you leave to this world. If you feel you did not do this earlier -- if you did not earlier manifest the radiance and greatness of your humanity -- then at the end, in death, you will do it in a very extraordinary way. So you will find that many times, those who commit suicide share a common trait: in their ordinary lives they were unknown, very quiet.

A few days ago someone in the group posted a message saying that the child of a colleague at their work unit committed suicide while in college. I have come across no fewer than four or five such cases, all from friends in the group or online friends who sent me messages. All of them were in the bloom of youth, boys and girls, who died silently, without any warning signs. Many parents cannot understand it. Seth explains this issue clearly: why does this happen? Because they did not do this earlier, their lives were not lived out, their thoughts were not expressed. Everything they said was not taken seriously by their parents, who felt their words were unimportant. So in the end they use death to show you, to make you take them seriously, using the most tragic way to draw your attention. Because you never took them seriously -- whatever they said, you said, "Stop talking, just focus on your studies." Did you ever pay attention to their inner feelings?

Some people's deaths are quiet periods.

Some people's deaths are very quiet.

Other people's deaths, however, are exclamation points, so that later people can say that the person's death was almost more important than his life itself.

As we often say, "Death may be lighter than a goose feather or heavier than Mount Tai" -- when we say death is heavier than Mount Tai, does that not mean his death had greater significance than his life itself? That is the meaning.

Some people die young, when they are still full of life's abundant possibilities, still half-dazed by the glory of childhood, and preparing to step across the threshold of adulthood with triumphant feelings -- or when it appears so on the surface -- they die.

This topic is very heavy, but it is indeed a reality we must face. Many young people, at the most brilliant time of life, just as they are about to enter society, end up like this. Let me give an example: a young girl, in her fourth year of university, about to graduate, attending one of the most famous universities, a world-class institution, committed suicide in her fourth year, without leaving a single word, not even a note. Her parents never knew why she died. Then one of her close relatives found me. He was actually listening to Seth Speaks at the time, and wanted to ask whether, if they had another child, it would be the reincarnation of the child who had committed suicide, coming back to be their child again. I answered directly: absolutely impossible, do not even think about it. Although these words sound cruel and cold, the fact is this: you did not cherish her properly in this life, so would she reincarnate as your child again? For what? To experience it all over again? They said that in this life they would take good care of her, and so on. And they also resented the child: not only did they not feel they had done anything wrong, they resented the child for ending her life in this way, making them suffer such pain, making the grandparents suffer such pain. They not only resented the child, they also resented the child's grandparents, feeling that the grandparents' preference for boys over girls had led to the child's suicide. The grandparents, already grief-stricken at losing such an outstanding granddaughter, then had the parents push the responsibility onto them -- how could the elderly withstand such a blow? The elderly then fell ill.

He came to find me, and I have always been rather direct in my speech. I would not beat around the bush just because I did not have a deep relationship with him. I directly stated my feelings: I said the problem was not with anyone else, it was with the parents. Did his parents control everything? He said yes. Did his parents arrange everything for the child, leaving the child no right to make decisions? Yes. I said a few things, and he said they were all correct. He said, how do you know? You have never met them, you do not know their family, how can you know their situation? There is no need to know. Anyone with a little understanding of sociology and some life experience would know. It is very simple -- his parents were teachers. When parents are teachers, the child suffers greatly, controlled to the last detail. So this girl was especially obedient, obedient from childhood, good at her studies, never needing her parents to manage her, always obedient, and in the end this was the result.

Although the outcome is deeply lamentable, I only want you -- if you are a parent with children -- to think carefully: have you truly cared about your own child? Have you cared about their feelings? Or has your child become the glory of your life? They got into a prestigious school -- did that not make you accomplished, bring honor to your face? Have you ever thought about what they wanted to do, what they wanted to be? Was getting into a prestigious school what they wanted, or what you wanted for them? Think carefully about this. There are many such cases; in any case, I have encountered at least four or five, all from people who came to find me wanting to discuss this issue.

See how clearly Seth describes it: preparing to step across the threshold of adulthood with triumphant feelings, yet their lives came to an abrupt halt.

Many such young people prefer to die at that time.

At what time? When life has not yet begun, just as they are about to enter adult society. Why?

When they feel that the possibilities of achievement are many and endless... they are often thinkers, idealists. And beneath all of this, beneath their enthusiasm, intelligence, and sometimes very special abilities, they can still feel that life merely sullies those abilities, extinguishes those spiritual intentions, and is but a dim promise that can never be fulfilled.

Many people do not understand what this passage really means. It means that these children are all outstanding. At a level you do not know, beneath their intelligence, wisdom, and enthusiasm -- enthusiasm for life, enthusiasm for the source of life -- they deeply know that life has infinite possibilities and infinite abilities. But under the suppression of such a society and such parents, they find they cannot realize those things. They feel that realizing those things in the way their parents or society prescribes would be a defilement of those things, a defilement of their ideals, a defilement of a beautiful life. They would rather not have it -- because after all, they are young, and at this time they do not yet know how to fight back, nor how to change things. Their only way is "I do not want it." To put it more bluntly, they wanted to live their own lives. If you do not let them, they would rather not live the life you want them to live. The life you wanted them to live was not the one they wanted, and at the extreme, they simply did not want it anymore.

In any case, this is not the reason for all such deaths.

This is not the only reason; it only explains a part. Not all premature deaths of young people are for this one reason. Be sure to remember that; do not apply it to everything.

But within it there is usually an implied statement, meant to make that death seem to compel parents and contemporaries to question another important meaning.

What meaning? What is it that people live for? The deaths of these children are in fact questioning their parents: is living only about grades? Is living only about getting into a top university? Is living only about achieving the things you consider accomplishments? Is there no other meaning to human life besides this? They actually want to question their parents about this, and also to question their contemporaries: is there another important meaning to human life? If there is, what is it?

This topic is rather heavy, but it is worth our deep reflection. If we as parents do not know the meaning of life, and you take these worldly things, other people's meanings of life, the things instilled in you from childhood or instilled in you by others, and without analysis, without critical thinking, pass them on again or instill them into your children, transmitting society's anxiety to them, transmitting your life's anxiety to them, transmitting your confusion about the meaning of life to them as well -- have you thought about whether they can bear it? The things you yourself cannot bear, why pass them on to them? Why not stop it with you? Why not give your child a bright, happy, beautiful childhood and future? Why do you put all this enormous social pressure onto them?

Such people usually choose a highly dramatic death.

Because no matter how it appears on the surface, they have never been able to express the content of their psyche's drama truthfully in this world. Did he not say earlier that everyone has this need, wanting to find the meaning of life within their own psychic drama? But they did not find it -- their meaning of life became their parents' meaning. Through your authority, through unquestionable means, the school, society, teachers, and you together tell the child that the meaning of their life is to score better, study better, get into a key high school and a key university. You do not care at all what the child thinks; you do not let them express it. So they express it to you one last time in this way.

They often turn their deaths into a lesson for others, forcing those people to ask questions they would not have asked before.

Look at those two parents who were teachers. As teachers, they certainly did not believe in these supernatural things, yet they asked a friend to find me and ask whether their child's soul could reincarnate into their second child. See, would they have asked such questions before? No. But at a time like this they ask -- they begin to believe in the soul, preferring to believe that their child has a soul, preferring to be reunited with the child again, because they want to make amends. They recognize part of their mistakes, not fully, but they recognize a part. So they ask questions they would not have asked. See how profound Seth's insight is.

But some of those who gather together to die -- there are some who gather together to die, seeking companions in death just as they would in life.

Just as in life we also want companions -- we have this organization or that organization; those of us studying Seth are an organization, a group of people who like the Seth material forming a companionship. So these people who want to die also seek companions, forming a collective life of the same kind. So many people do not understand why nowadays many elementary school students, middle school students, even elementary school students, make group pacts to commit suicide. They do not understand why these children, whose family conditions are not bad at all, often arrange to die together. Seth tells you here: just as we seek companions in life, in the matter of death they also want a companion, to make a collective statement together, to put on a collective performance.

Those who feel powerless, and those who cannot find a reason to go on living, therefore gather together.

Those who feel powerless -- their powerlessness is caused by their parents. Through various means, from childhood, parents turn their children into beings who cannot resist, crushed by their parents. Any resistance they put up is suppressed by "studies," "social anxiety," "how to make money in the future," "how to succeed," and so on.

And they die for a goal that did not give them the will or the reason to live.

They cannot find a goal or a will to live, and for this goal they cannot find, they go to die. They will seek out their own kind, so there are often secret codes and signals online, and they secretly connect with one another, often several children dying together. From the perspective of the three-dimensional world, it is indeed a very tragic thing, but it happens from time to time.

Rigid Belief Systems and Fanatical Cults

Seth says that the inner mechanisms of emotions and beliefs are very complex. Just a moment ago he was talking about how to find a partner, and everyone was listening and laughing happily, and then he suddenly shifted to the topic of young people dying, of suicide. It is all a matter of emotions and beliefs, and the inner mechanism is in many cases the same.

But these are people who have felt that physical life has disappointed them. They have no power in society, their thinking is black and white, and there is a contradiction between their emotions and their beliefs about their emotions.

They do have passion for life, and they also have deep feelings for all the possibilities of their own future development, but there is a contradiction between these feelings and reality, between these feelings and their beliefs, and it cannot be resolved. It is the contradiction between emotions and beliefs about emotions that makes them seek refuge in a rigid belief system. Is our current science-based belief system very rigid? Where does its rigidity lie? In not acknowledging the meaning of life. And these young people, these vibrant young people, in their teens, seven or eight, thirteen or fourteen, fifteen or sixteen, they are full of vitality, full of longing and hope for life. Think about what you were like when you were thirteen or fourteen, fourteen or fifteen. Did your parents pass their pressures on to you at that time? Did they pass on to you the difficulties and pressures they encountered in their work units, in their jobs, in society? No. So why do you want to pass on to a teenager the pressures you now face in life and in the workplace -- including high housing prices and social competition? At the very time when he has the most dreams, the most ideals, and the most hope for life, you pour bucket after bucket of ice water on him. And you think that is not harsh enough, so you put him in the freezer for a few days and every so often you tap on him, telling him how cold, cruel, and heartless society is. What are you doing? Today I will speak on behalf of these children: you are destroying them. Under the banner of love, under the banner of doing it for their own good, you are destroying their young and fragile psyches again and again. It is like putting a flower in the refrigerator to freeze it, telling it that this world is not a greenhouse, that there is also bitter winter. Freeze it a few more times, and it will become so fragile that it will wither on its own.

This rigid belief deserves reflection from our current belief system: it does not acknowledge the meaning of life, nor does it tell him what meaning life has, as if life has no meaning anymore except chasing goals in the external material world. Well, to a teenager, those things really hold no attraction at all. Believe what I am telling you -- they may hold attraction for you, but for an adult who cannot find the meaning of life, money may be the only thing that gives you a sense of position, social status may be the only thing you can hold on to, and when others look up to you, call you "brother" or "sister," when you are a boss or a CEO, you get a little psychological balance. But to a teenager, these things are utterly dull and completely meaningless. And you want to force them on your child, make him treat these things as the meaning of his life -- how can he accept that? When he discovers that life is just living like this, he would rather not have such a life at all. He would rather have the life he wants, the idealistic one, full of expectation, full of passionate longing for life. Parents should stop doing this kind of thing from now on.

They will give you the rules you can follow.

Needless to say, it is handing him a rigid belief system and telling him he should follow it. They do not want this rigid belief system; it holds no pleasure for them at all. All that stuff about making money, buying a house, "what is life for," "marry into a rich family" -- do you really think teenagers like these things?

Such systems lead to the formation of fanatical cults.

Such systems also lead to fanaticism, and those who may become members also find a leader, and he will certainly fulfill their purposes, just as they seem to fulfill the leader's purposes as well.

Through an inner mechanism of which every member is at least aware.

What inner mechanism? Mutual need. You need a leader to guide you, to solve for you the problem of the meaning of life you are seeking; this leader also needs you fanatical members, fans, and worshippers to realize the meaning of his own life. You are mutually fulfilling each other. You want the leader to tell you what the meaning of life is, and he wants to embody the meaning of his own life through the fanaticism and adoration of these fans. Is that not ridiculous? You want to get meaning from him, and he wants to get meaning from you. The two of you just happen to form a team, and each of you finds meaning -- your meaning exists because of him, and his meaning exists because of you. He is steering this issue toward Jonestown, setting up a transition for the later discussion of the Jonestown incident.

End of the Dictation

Rob said that after giving Jane two passages of material, Seth ended the session at 10:15. Rob was surprised by this quick ending; Jane's pace had been steady and forceful throughout, and she exclaimed, "Wow, I feel like that was a huge amount of material, really much better, though I still can't put a name to it. I feel like I'm almost about to get to Guyana." -- Guyana being the Jonestown incident, the one where 900 people died collectively²³. She said, "I think and hope that Jones does seem like, soon this book will discuss the Jonestown tragedy²⁴." This was an intuition of hers, and indeed it was. Later Seth would have a great deal of material discussing an incident in which 900 people committed collective suicide.

Session 834: The Mechanisms of Experience (Part 4)

This session was held on Monday, February 5, 1979²⁵, at 8:59 p.m. The preceding portion consists of Rob's notes about the circumstances before the session began.

After dinner, Jane looked over some notes Rob had recently written. In them, Rob speculated about why he drew portraits from imagination -- most artists draw from models, but Rob was different from others; he drew portraits from his own imagination. He called these his "different heads" -- different faces that surfaced in his mind, which he would draw rather than using live models. He wanted to know the reason for this. He was very curious, and wondered whether some of the motives behind his way of drawing came from reincarnational personalities, or from counterparts. The counterpart is a concept Seth had mentioned, which we will discuss in later chapters.

Then that evening Rob brought up that it would be wonderful if Seth could discuss such a topic. And Jane replied that she thought Seth would do so. In fact, that statement -- "Seth will do so" -- combined with his wanting to ask Seth for some material on a question of his own, made him wonder whether they would receive any material about this book tonight.

Then as they sat down together to wait for the session, Jane immediately told Rob to write down what she was about to say. This was something she herself said before the session began, a kind of perception of hers: "Whether or not Seth talks about him, he has already received this material." Before the session even started, she had received some additional material -- a new section, along with a chapter title, called "People Who Are Frightened of Themselves, Controlled Environments, and Positive and Negative Collective Behavior." She told Rob to quickly write it down.

Rob told her that he thought Seth not only had plenty of time to answer their individual questions -- that is, their private questions -- but would also transmit some book dictation. Rob now had some intuition about this, and indeed it turned out to be so.

We are including the material Seth gave to Jane, and the material Seth gave to Rob personally, in this book because it applies to people in general. It does not apply only to Rob himself. So you see, even though Seth, in dealing with Rob's drawing of images from his own mind, did not mention the words "reincarnation" or "counterparts," he still truly revealed how those "inhabitants of the mind" form part of each person's innate knowledge of his or her own greater self. We will see this as we go on. Because at this point we still do not know what he means -- what are the inhabitants of the mind? How can they form part of the innate knowledge of that greater self?

The Nature of Consciousness: The Appearance of Contradiction

First Seth said "Good evening," and then Seth said:

Regarding your material -- that is, why I always draw things from my own imagination, and related matters -- as I have often said, some concepts are extremely difficult to explain.

Keep in mind, some concepts are extremely difficult to explain, and they are not as easy as his later explanation makes them seem. But you see, even though Seth says they are extremely difficult to explain, he still explains them. Especially regarding the nature of consciousness:

Because within your frame of reference, there are often quite reasonable concepts that can appear to contradict one another.

Within our human frame of reference, we bring in those old, habitual, traditional concepts directly, and they affect our perception of certain issues. He says he will tell us some things, but you will bring in your traditional concepts, and this will cause you to feel that there are contradictions in the middle, so that some things will seem to invalidate others -- as if two different viewpoints were contradicting each other. Because your understanding of the nature of consciousness and your own traditional concepts will come into conflict with each other.

He goes on to say:

I try to state strongly the original uniqueness of the individual.

Seth has been emphasizing all along: each person has his or her own unique characteristics -- this original uniqueness is the one-of-a-kind quality; each person is a unique existence. He has also said that you yourself are without any limitations. And these two statements can appear to contradict each other. They are inherently contradictory. Why are they contradictory? That is, if you have your own uniqueness, where does this uniqueness come from? Who gave it to you? How did you obtain this unique characteristic? Since you have a unique characteristic, how can it be said that you yourself are without limitations?

Coincidentally, today someone in the group asked a similar question: about one's own life, one's life blueprint, and one's destiny -- can it be changed? Can the blueprint be changed? And a series of related questions. This group member is called Mili. I also gave an answer. And the content of this session happens to address the same kind of question. We can see how he explains it.

The Mosaic of Identity

What he means is this: if you as a person have a unique characteristic, then this unique characteristic and the idea that you yourself are without limitations -- these two viewpoints themselves seem to contradict each other.

When you are still a child, in ordinary experience, your sense of identity does not include the elderly you. Of course -- when you are a child, you would absolutely never include in your sense of identity an elderly you, an adult you, or a middle-aged you. When you are a child, your sense of identity contains only the child you. But when you are an old person, does your sense of identity at that time include the child? You grew from a child into an elderly person, but at this point do you still identify yourself as a child? You do not. When you are an elderly person, you no longer identify yourself as a child. This is very strange.

When you are a child, you do not identify with the elderly identity -- you might say he has not experienced it, so it is understandable that he does not identify with it. But when a person is elderly, he also does not identify with that child as being himself. He feels that was his childhood self, but he does not have a sense of identity with that child self. Very interesting, isn't it? Your sense of identity changes concretely along with your own age. You can only feel your most recent or present-period sense of identity; what comes later you do not know, and what came earlier you do not identify with.

In a certain way, it is as though through experience you have enriched yourself, becoming more than you were before. You move in and out of probable selves, while at the same time, often effortlessly, maintaining your own identity. The mosaic of consciousness is truly dazzling.

What does this mean? In a certain way, it seems that through your own experience, through your life's journey, you have enriched yourself, and then you are always richer than the previous you, more than before -- a larger you. If experience represents you, then the more experience you have, the richer you are compared to your previous self. And then you move in and out of those probable yous -- what does it mean to move in and out of probable yous? It means that through the childhood you, through youth, middle age, all the way to the elderly you, you pass through these to become the you that you are now.

But at the same time, whether you are a child or an elderly person, you still consider that to be you. This is moving through different probable yous -- you move through the child you and the elderly you, including the sense of identity of the you at different ages in between, and you have not lost your own unique identity; you have still maintained a one-of-a-kind, continuous identity of your own. This sense of continuity of identity is very interesting -- your identity has never changed, you are always still that you, yet you do not identify with the you of each age period.

The following sentence is very important:

The mosaic of consciousness is truly dazzling.

The you of each period, the you of each day, the you of each age, the you of each era -- all of these can be understood as a sense of identity of the self at that period, or a mosaic of consciousness. And these mosaics layer upon layer, ultimately forming the you of the present. None of your layers of identity have been lost, but your final complete sense of identity shines through these layer upon layer of the you of each stage, appearing so dazzling.

The Mosaic of Consciousness and Light

Then he says:

When I speak of a mosaic, you may think of a small shiny piece, or a fragment, or pieces of different shapes and sizes.

That is what we think of. But he says the mosaic of consciousness is actually more like light:

You should imagine the mosaic of consciousness as a beam of light.

Do not think of it as a piece of glass, a fragment, or some object. The mosaic of consciousness is the sense of self-identity at different periods of your life -- he calls this a mosaic of consciousness. This mosaic of consciousness is more like a beam of light:

This beam of light, through itself -- that is, consciousness through itself -- emits light through a million spectra.

Why does he mention a million spectra here? Because your consciousness is layered upon layered. You could say that every present moment, every instant, is a different sense of identity of you -- we are just simplifying by saying the childhood you, the middle school you, the high school you. Isn't every day of life a completely new you? Every moment a completely new you? When I say "completely new," I mean your sense of identity is already different from the previous moment.

Why does he use light as an analogy? Because the implication of light is: self-luminous. It does not need others to shine on it, nor does it need anything to stimulate it; it is itself that light, it is itself that energy, it is itself shining, itself glowing. Through what does it glow? Through itself, through its own consciousness -- consciousness shines through itself. Finally, when these shining lights overlap together, it is like light radiating through a million kinds of brilliance.

The Inhabitants of the Mind

Then he says:

Before birth, before the eyes open, the infant can see psychic images.

Before seeing the physical world, it has a psychic image. Whether in the mother's womb or just after birth before opening its eyes -- before birth, as far as you are concerned, your memory seems to be your own. We feel that memory is all acquired by ourselves, what we have seen, what we have felt. But:

I have told you that you have histories of other existences.

Before this birth, before this lifetime of reincarnation, you also have other histories of yourself, which also exist in your memory, in your cells, but at a deeper level.

You are able to remember other faces, even though what you call the conscious mind may not recognize those images that come from deeper inner memory.

He is saying that Rob -- Rob, those heads you draw, you call them your heads, or the images in your mind, in your thoughts; when you draw them as portraits, you do not recognize them. But they are memories from your deeper consciousness, from your inner consciousness -- that is, memories of your reincarnations, not memories from this lifetime.

The mind must often clothe those images in the garments of its fancy.

Your mind is the one that spans both ends -- one end connected to your inner self, the other end connected to your outer consciousness. It serves as a bridge between the unconscious and the conscious. So the mind must clothe those images that come from elsewhere, not from this world, in some garments of fancy; otherwise you would not be able to understand them.

Then this sentence is very interesting, and it carries deep meaning:

You are yourself.

What does he mean? He is saying that those drawings, those images that appear in your mind -- they are yourself. It is just that they are the you of different times and spaces, the you of different probable worlds, the you of different reincarnations. Although they have changed into different clothes and you can no longer recognize them, they are still yourself.

The Unique You

Your selfhood is secure within its identity.

Your selfhood, that is, the part of your original self-awareness, your original unique part -- remember, he is talking about this original uniqueness.

You meet life in a way that has never happened before and will never happen again.

This sentence is extremely well said; be sure to remember it. He is saying that this selfhood of yours, the part you call "you," your one-of-a-kind part -- first of all, it is secure within your overall sense of identity. It will not be the case that after several reincarnations, the personality of this lifetime of yours will disappear -- it will not disappear; it exists forever. But the you of this lifetime is unique. He says:

You meet life in a way that has never happened before and will never happen again.

You can savor this sentence carefully. Simply put, your unique characteristic -- the one that belongs only to you, the only one of its kind in this universe -- in this lifetime of yours, blooms and manifests in your own unique way, allowing your life to express itself, to live out the colors that this life itself should have. And this has never happened before, and will never happen again.

From one perspective, you can live countless lives, have countless reincarnations -- indeed it is so; they are all happening simultaneously. But from another perspective, if all your reincarnations, all your lives, all your probable yous are happening simultaneously, then doesn't that mean you only have this one life to live? Every moment of this life, every present instant, is a spacious present; it can extend into past, present, and future. But at the same time, if you leave this present moment, you cannot find any other.

It is not that after learning Seth's material we can squander our lives, thinking that since there are countless reincarnations, if we don't succeed this time we can try again next time -- think carefully, is that really so? You can come again next time, but next time it will not be this you; it will be another you. Are these two both you? He can also say they are both you, just as he said "You are yourself" -- one can say they are all you. But that one is already completely different from the you of this lifetime. You can never again reproduce a you of this lifetime, which has left its unique mark in this universe.

What kind of life you want to live is entirely up to you. If you want to live a mediocre life, that is fine; if you want to live a magnificent life, that is also fine; both are acceptable.

You are still a unique version of your greater self.

Although this happens only this once, and will never happen again, this one version -- that is, this one reincarnation, this one-of-a-kind lifetime's experience -- is still a unique version of a greater self.

Sharing an Overall Pattern

Then he says, these "you" -- referring to all the yous, these reincarnational yous, the yous in probable worlds, the childhood you and the elderly you, all included within all of these -- all of these yous added together are called "you":

You share a certain overall pattern, and that in itself is also original.

Does this mean we have an overall value fulfillment, and each person only completes a small part of it? Has this value fulfillment already been defined and prescribed, and I am only a small part of it?

No. He says even this overall pattern is also original. What does "original" mean? It also depends on you, depends on this version of you to create it. Do you understand? You are the one who enriches him, you are the one who perfects him, you are the one who makes him shine. You are not a character in someone else's story, not a bit player. You are the protagonist at all times.

This section explains the question many people have been asking: my soul and myself, my destiny, my fate and my self-determination, my blueprint and my life's reincarnation -- where exactly is the meaning? He uses another way to explain it. He is explaining why Rob has those images in his mind, why he keeps drawing those people, and he expands from there.

The Analogy of the Psychic Earth

Then the following passage is also very beautiful. He is explaining how these probable yous, these reincarnational yous, share that overall pattern:

It is as if you share a psychic planet.

He is giving a vivid example -- as if you share a psychic planet, just as we share this physical planet. How do we share the physical planet? We jointly share the mountains, the earth, the oceans, the air on this physical planet. Each of us is an independent existence, but we have some things in common -- the earth is common, the sky is common, the mountains and rivers are all common. Are we sharing them? Yes, that is sharing.

He says, we can imagine that all these different yous, probable yous, all your fragments, jointly share an overall pattern, as if sharing something on a psychic planet:

They are inhabited by people who have the same roots, the same basis of existence.

It is as if there is a psychic planet, and on this psychic planet dwell the reincarnational yous, the reincarnated yous, the probable yous. These yous all have a common root -- why? Because they are all branches under one entity; they all originate from the same entity.

He says, unlike our physical world:

What you share is actually a certain pattern of development, a certain imagery, a certain memory, and a certain desire.

Just as we share the earth, at the level of the soul, all the reincarnational yous, all the probable yous, do not share mountains and rivers; they share a common pattern of development, a common memory, a common desire.

These are all reflected in your physical lives:

They share, in somewhat the same way, the elements of your lives.

These reincarnational yous all have many commonalities. Of course they have different, completely different lives, different ways of living, but they have certain characteristics that you cannot see on the surface. For example, someone like Seth, in many of his reincarnations, took on a role similar to that of a speaker -- but this does not mean that in every lifetime he was a speaker; rather, he was subtly developing and guiding himself in that direction. So becoming a speaker is one of his intentions, one of the entity's intentions, a desire, an imagery.

You see, Seth has already died, already gone to another time and space, yet he is still turning back to do what he should have done while he was alive. So you understand, the "you" he speaks of also includes all these probabilities. Not only when we reincarnate on Earth; when our entity goes to other planets, other worlds, other times and spaces, other modes, we will still jointly share this same pattern. So even though Seth has left Earth, left his physical body, left what we consider physical life, he is still doing the work of a speaker.

What are the "elements of life"? They are certain core things in this lifetime of ours. At the level we cannot see clearly, across many reincarnations, if you stand at a higher dimension and perspective, you can see their commonalities; you can see this thread, this intention, this pattern of development and growth. But within this lifetime you cannot see it clearly -- unless you reach a very high state of awareness and practice, able to glimpse or behold the true face of reality; otherwise, at this level, you cannot see clearly what role this lifetime of yours plays within the entire thread.

Do Not Keep Asking About the Blueprint

Many people always want to investigate what their blueprint is, always want to investigate the overall pattern of development, always want to investigate this overall imagery, memory, desire -- always wanting to investigate this. I tell you, do not investigate this. Because this is not something you can understand or investigate. Why? Because it is simultaneously living and existing in thousands and millions of worlds, and these people influence each other; it is not something dead -- how can you understand something that is alive?

Let me give the simplest example: at this present moment, is this very intention and thought of wanting to understand your blueprint also a part of this blueprint? If it is, then how can you understand this ever-changing blueprint? If it is not, then how can it jump out of this kind of probable existence?

In other words, if there are a thousand yous living simultaneously, how could it let one of you know the life states, life meanings, and purposes of the other 999 people, and then summarize from the middle a common pattern, a common intention, a common desire? Because you do not have this ability; you cannot simultaneously live the lives of 1,000 people, so you cannot possibly understand this overall intention and desire.

So do not keep asking -- many people keep asking, saying, if I reach a certain level of spiritual practice, can I then ask about these things? Do not ask about these. This is the same principle as fortune-telling.

Then you might say, if I don't ask and don't know, how do I know whether I am living correctly? Am I living in accordance with this pattern, in accordance with this imagery, in accordance with his desire, am I enriching this overall memory? Am I living it wrong?

Is this worry necessary? It is not necessary. You cannot live it wrong, and you cannot live it incorrectly. Why? Because for this entity, one of his purposes is to explore all possibilities. So no matter how you live, no matter how far outside the lines you go, no matter how you struggle, you are enriching him in the process of the great entity's continuous exploration, innovation, and experience. He does have a general intention and purpose, but it is not something that boxes you in.

The Analogy of Parents and Children

Let me give a more vivid example. You have a child, and you have a general goal and idea for the child, but the child does not necessarily follow your plan. Moreover, your vision and development for the child's future will also change continuously along with the child's development, the achievements he makes, his own feelings, and his own will. This blueprint of yours, your beautiful expectations for the child's future -- it is not a fixed, dead thing; it is also being adjusted at all times.

If one day the child asks you: Dad or Mom, how have you planned my life blueprint? I will follow your blueprint. Would you take out paper and pen and draw up a life blueprint for him, saying, child, just develop according to this? Would you? You certainly would not. Why? Because the future holds infinite possibilities; how could you sketch it out?

But do you have a general plan and blueprint for the child's development? Yes, you do. If you can understand this, I will analogize it to the relationship between your entity and you -- somewhat similar to the relationship between you and your child. Somewhat similar; I am not saying it is the same. I must emphasize that what I just said is an analogy, but in terms of direction you can understand it.

Your entity projects you down, sends you into reincarnation, and you have complete autonomy, complete free will. When you live out yourself, you live out a part of his blueprint. Why? Because you are a part of this blueprint; this blueprint is composed of you, composed of a mosaic like you -- see, speaking of mosaics, it comes to mind. You are one piece of the mosaic.

You keep asking: what should my piece of the mosaic be like? It can be whatever you want it to be. Whatever it is, you are a part of this blueprint.

Live Out Yourself

So, at this point you should understand: do not keep asking these questions anymore. This is a question that all people who study spirituality, who study spiritual practice, ask over and over again, going around in circles, binding their own hands, binding their own feet -- this they dare not do, that they dare not do, this will create karma, that will create sin, is this right, should that be done...

None of that. There are none of these things. Just fully release your life. Remember, you only have this one life; it is a way that "has never happened before and will never happen again." You must cherish this one life of yours. Studying spirituality is not for you to squander your life.

Life can also be repeated many times, dying and coming back again, dying and coming back again. But when you die and come back, the one who comes back is not you anymore. It might be Xiaoming, or Lao Wang, or Zhang San, or Li Si. He is no longer the you of right now. What does his coming back have to do with you? You might say it is all one entity, it is one entity -- but to put it bluntly, what the hell does that have to do with you? Has the you of this lifetime already been lived through? What mark you should leave on this universe, what sign you should leave behind, that is entirely up to you. You come back as a Lao Wang, and you create a new life for Lao Wang. No matter what it is like, that is Lao Wang's life, not the life you are living now.

So after studying this material, it is not meant to make you give up on yourself. It is meant to make you engage with the world more actively, to make you more actively unfold your life, to experience your life. It is not meant to make you passively withdraw from the world, sitting there cultivating your next life, cultivating a future existence. What does a future life have to do with you?

The matters of this life are to be resolved in this life. Whatever wishes or longings you have in this life, you must go and realize them. No matter what your ideas or wishes are, you must give them a try, you must put them into practice, you must find a way to make them real. Do not ask what the final result will be. That is not something you need to worry about. If you do this, you are greatly enriching the developmental pattern of your whole self. You are greatly enriching his intentions, greatly enriching his wishes.

Because you are also a part of that wish, you are also a part of that intention. Why do you always go asking about the collective intention? Is your own intention not important? Is there not a share of you within that collective intention? Of course there is. Is what you especially want to do not also a part of what the collective intention especially wants to do? It certainly is. Why are you so timid and hesitant, so afraid to stand up, so afraid to live out yourself with your head held high, while you keep asking, "What does my entity want me to do," "What does my soul want me to do," "What is my mission in coming here this time"? Are you going to be a mama's boy forever? Always asking your mother how you should live, as if you cannot live on your own?

Painting and a Deeper Understanding

I will stop here and continue on. He says that Rob painted faces, and this matter:

The faces you painted represented such a realization -- you have always thought that your painting talent should have been enough.

What he means is this: you feel that your painting talent is already enough, that it is sufficient. In terms of painting technique, painting ability, painting gift, you have already acquired the abilities you should have. Then:

You thought it should be something that could let you throw yourself into it with complete passion, but you never felt that it was.

What does this mean? It means Rob believed that painting could let him invest all his passion, but you never felt that it was something into which he could invest all his passion -- Rob did not feel that painting was something into which he could pour all his passion. Interesting, is it not? He was torn. Because if it were, you would have followed it single-mindedly. If painting could have become the thing into which you poured all your passion, you would have done nothing else, pursuing only painting. But you did not. Rob did not treat painting as all of his life's pursuit and ideal.

Then he paused for a long time -- Seth also did not know how to say this. To say more would make it a bit too serious; not to say it, and Rob would remain unclear, never understanding. He was thinking about how to phrase it.

He went on:

For you, painting must be combined with a deeper understanding.

See how refined his wording is: painting must be combined with a deeper understanding.

Painting is even playing the role of a teacher, leading you through and beyond images, and then back to them again.

See how artistic Seth's words are here. Those of us who read the Seth material are often struck with amazement -- some people joke that they slap their thighs until they are swollen. They read a passage and find it so brilliant that they slap their thighs, and by the end their thighs are swollen from slapping. This passage is also the kind that makes you slap your thigh in amazement.

Here, painting applies only to Rob. For each of us, it might be something else. We use painting, use Rob's situation, to reflect on ourselves.

He says that for Rob, painting is not merely a painting technique, nor is it just a skill for earning a living, nor your sense of identity -- "I am a painter." He says painting for you is more like a teacher. What kind of teacher? This teacher leads you through and beyond images -- because what does painting depict? Is it not images? Painters paint images, whether the image of a model or an image in the mind. What he paints and presents must be an image. So Seth says, this teacher leads you beyond the image of painting itself, beyond the painting itself, and then back to these images again.

This is the important significance of painting for Rob. If you replace painting with something else -- that thing in your life -- think carefully about whether it is the same for you. Does the work you do, or this ability of yours, and what it brings you now, also play the role of a teacher? Does this ability of yours also lead you beyond the thing that the ability itself presents, and then back to that thing itself again? If you have such an understanding and recognition, you will see through things. This is the state people often talk about -- seeing mountains as not mountains, seeing water as not water, and in the end mountains are still mountains, water is still water.

Your painting was meant to bring out, in the form of images, some of the accumulated experience from the hidden zones of your existence.

That is, the experience of your past lives -- not those people you meet on the street. The ones you paint are not people you meet on the street; they are all people in your mind:

But the inhabitants of the psyche.

They are the inhabitants of your psyche, the inhabitants of your mind, the inhabitants of your deep memory. Their portraits.

The inhabitants of the psyche are not real, and yet in a certain way, they are closer to you than your parents are.

Why? You come from the same entity. They are merely different reincarnations. They are also another you. In a certain sense they are another you, but their identity and role are no longer you. Yet they come from the same root, from the same entity. So their relationship with you is closer than the relationship between your parents and you. Your parents only gave you a physical body as parents, while these shared entities gave you life -- at the soul level, it is those shared entities who gave you life. So your relationship with them is closer than the relationship between your parents and you.

When you express their reality, they also express yours.

When you paint them out from your mind, they are also expressing your reality in their worlds. All time is simultaneous. It is only the illusion of time in each part of you that prevents them from greeting one another -- because each part of you, including the reincarnated you and the you living in other parallel space-times, all have the illusion of time, and that is why you cannot greet one another.

To a certain degree, when you paint these portraits, you are forming a psychic bridge between yourself and those other selves. Your own identity expands -- when you paint them, you already have a greater recognition of your own identity. Because you discover that you are not only the you of now, but also those inhabitants of the psyche, that is, the other probable yous.

The Powerful Self and Personality

What follows is only a way of speaking -- he says the following is only a way of speaking, not real, not fact, only a metaphor, a description, or a narration from another angle.

There are certain necessary defining terms, such as the powerful self or personality.

We can give it a name. For example, we can call this thing the "powerful self," that is, the larger self, or call it "personality."

That is a part of your own larger identity.

That is to say, besides this physical you, above the physical you, there is a larger you, which can be called your "personality" or the "powerful you." Although this personality of yours is larger than your physical body, it is still a part of a larger identity of yours.

They utilize quite tremendous energy in very constructive ways.

This personality of yours can utilize quite tremendous energy, and in very constructive ways, in ways that are helpful to you. The energy he utilizes is also a part of your own personality, only you do not yet know how to use it.

And when you paint such images, you will undoubtedly feel bursts of ambition, even exuberant vitality. These feelings will let you recognize that he is the image of that kind of personality.

What he means is this: right now you have a physical you, a self that you recognize as your ego -- this "I" (ego) you. But above this "I" there is also a personality, which we can call a "personality fragment" or the "personality you." This personality you is larger than the self your ego recognizes. It includes the whole you, including the inner you, including the physical you that your ego recognizes, and also including the part of you that you do not know -- it is a complete you. And this personality can use energy that you cannot access. Although this energy is also a part of the personality, as the you of the present moment -- this physical you, this ego you -- you cannot use it. But that personality can use it, because this energy is a part of his personality. Of course he can use what is a part of his own personality. And that energy is tremendous.

So when you can perceive and contact him, including when you paint his image, you can feel that burst of ambition -- bursts of ambition, full of vitality, even exuberant vitality can be felt. And such exuberance, such a burst of ambition, will let you recognize -- it is the image of this kind of personality.

Below is Rob's own addition. Rob said that last week, he thought he did have that kind of feeling, the burst of ambition and exuberant vitality Seth described -- when he was painting his last head. That is why he wrote those notes. But he did not take the time to discuss them with Jane, did not discuss these details, and Seth spoke them all out.

Then Seth continued:

That is why I mentioned them, because I knew you had not told Ruburt.

Of course, the paintbrush can truly be a key to other worlds.

This paintbrush truly can be a key to other worlds.

And your own emotional feelings have also been transferred here.

That is, your emotional feelings have also been transferred onto this paintbrush. He was analyzing Rob's emotional process at that time -- the ambitious emotional state. So when you look again at the fairy tale of Ma Liang and the magic paintbrush, this myth no longer seems so mythical.

The Encouragement of Dreams

Seth continued:

In any case, you must encourage dream activity.

No matter what, you must encourage activity in dreams. And in your dreams, there will be an interrelationship between your painting and your writing, each encouraging the other -- painting will encourage your writing, and writing will encourage your painting.

Your writing contains your painting, and your painting also gains vitality from your writing. They gain vitality from each other.

And the dreaming self is at certain times in contact with all other aspects of your reality.

When you are dreaming, you are in contact with the other reincarnational selves, the probable selves, and their realities.

Trusting the Private Self

The next passage is very important:

If you cannot trust your private self, then you will not trust the you that is in relationship with others and with society.

What is the private self? The private self includes the you in your own thoughts, the you that you recognize when you are alone, and also the you that you recognize in your self-perception. Out in the world -- in society -- there is a you wearing a mask, something we call a "facade." In English there is a word for this, facade, which is originally a French word meaning frontage. Everyone has a facade when they go out. What does this facade bring you? It is a disguise of yourself. In society you have such an identity -- you are a businessman, you are an artist, you are a painter. These are all your identities, and those are the public you.

What he is saying now is that you must believe in the private you -- that is, in the dead of night, the self's recognition of itself, or your recognition of yourself at other times. And at the same time you must trust him completely.

Each of us can ask ourselves: we actually dislike this private self, sometimes -- I mean sometimes -- you find that this private self is sometimes very selfish, sometimes very base, sometimes those thoughts cannot even be brought to the table. And then you say, this is not me, I do not want a self like this.

So here, Seth gives us the most real, the most core method for solving the problem: you cannot avoid this issue. You cannot always speak of lofty ideals, always speak of the welfare of humanity, the interests of society, the common good. Do not be like that. You must bravely and truly face the real you -- face what the complete you looks like. Including when you are fragile, when you lack confidence, when you are afraid -- these are all the private self. You are not the invincible self. You have your own weaknesses. You must fully trust this self.

He says if you do not completely trust this self, then you will not trust the open self in relationships with others and society, the public self, the self with a facade or wearing a mask. If you do not believe in your private self, you will not believe in your public self, your open self, your social self either. You will not trust it.

If you do not trust your private self, you are afraid of power.

Seth directly pulls out the root of the problem for you. If you are afraid of your private self, what consequence will it bring? You will be afraid of power. Why? Because you are afraid that you will inevitably misuse this power. Because you do not believe that this private self will do anything good. You are afraid that once he has this power, he will do things you consider bad. Because you do not believe in him, you do not trust him, you do not trust this you. You feel he still has this problem and that problem. You feel he is not brave enough, not loving enough, not confident enough, not enough of this, not enough of that.

In Seth Speaks, and fundamentally all along, he has always said to love yourself, to believe in yourself. I do not know how many people have actually done it. Here he emphasizes it once again: you must do this. If you do not have this, the consequences that follow will be very serious -- because you will be afraid to give yourself power, and you will not give yourself power, because you are afraid he will do bad things.

Then Seth leaned forward -- the following is a description of Seth's behavior. Of course at this time he was in Jane's body, but this action was done by Seth -- Seth leaned forward, and in a quiet tone, but with a hint of mockery:

You place yourself in a position of weakness.

Because you do not trust, do not believe in this private self, you will not give yourself power, will not delegate power to yourself, and you place yourself in a position of weakness. And yet you keep claiming:

You are seeking influence.

But you have made yourself so weak. How could you have influence? You have not even authorized yourself. How could you display influence? He is talking about Rob -- for a painter, what is most important? Influence. If your paintings, your works of art, have no influence, you cannot become a well-known painter. What he means is to directly point out Rob's problem: because you do not believe in the private you, you do not dare give yourself power. You are a weak self. You have always been in a position of weakness, and yet you keep claiming you want to become an influential painter -- that is nonsense. You simply cannot do it. Because there is no power in your heart.

Seth speaks harshly. Although his words are very artistic, when he speaks he really cuts to the bone -- more than to the bone, it cuts almost a foot deep. He directly points out Rob's problem.

Because you do not understand yourself, you will find yourself in a predicament, and the mechanisms of experience will appear mysterious and capricious.

What are the mechanisms of experience? Is this whole chapter not about how experience works, how experience operates? The mechanisms of experience are this: if we want to experience a certain kind of experience, do we not first need to have that feeling, and then the event will be triggered along with your feeling? That is, if you want to experience this kind of influential experience, do you not need to have this feeling of influence? With such a feeling, emotion, and state, you will then trigger influential events in your real life.

He says it is precisely because there is no influence within you, because you are internally in a position of weakness, that you do not dare authorize yourself. Although on the surface you say you want influence, in real life the events, one after another, turn out contrary to your wishes, capricious, sometimes there, sometimes not, appearing mysterious and capricious.

Does this passage not explain a question many of us have: why is my belief and imagination beautiful, yet the result is not good? This is because we have not dug down to the very core of our beliefs. In The Nature of Personal Reality, Seth always tells us to dig deep into our beliefs. But have you dug deep? Have you dug to the extent he has? Have you dug out your inner weakness? Have you dug out the matter of your not daring to trust your private self?

In other words, let me put it more bluntly: do you trust a you who has accomplished nothing? Do you trust a you who does nothing? Do you trust a you who will accomplish nothing? You do not trust him. You only want to trust a you who is successful and accomplished, you only want to trust a you who is glorious and limitless. When he has not yet achieved it, you do not trust him. Because you do not trust him, you do not authorize him, and so he cannot live into the image you imagine.

This is what many people go around and around without understanding: since the principle Seth describes is so simple, as if he has given us the secret manual of the universe, the truth of this world, we should be able to take it and directly have an invincible, cheat-code life. But in real life it is not like that. Where is the reason? The reason is right here. Seth tirelessly points it out to you: you yourself are being capricious, and then you feel that experience is bewildering, as if it is not at all following your feelings the way Seth said. So the reason is not in the mechanism -- it is not in the mechanism, but in yourself.

The Frightened Person

However, in certain situations, those mechanisms can be clearly seen. So let us examine such a situation.

The situation I am going to discuss may seem somewhat exaggerated.

The issue he is about to discuss may seem a bit exaggerated, because in most people's lives these are not normal situations. Seth says I deliberately exaggerated it, to make you alert, to let you clearly see something -- to see how this mechanism of experience operates, how you interfere with yourself, how you are afraid of yourself. Because you are afraid of yourself, you cannot live as the real you. How does this happen in between?

He says:

I am going to cite some seemingly exaggerated examples, yet they are of a rather peculiar nature, but like a spotlight, they illuminate with great clarity the intellect, intent, purpose, and contradictions that often appear in the lives of quite normal men and women.

He says through this description, it is like putting those strange thoughts and strange qualities in your heart under a spotlight for you to see, illuminating with great clarity the intentions and purposes in the lives of ordinary men and women, and how these intentions and purposes often contradict themselves. You always say your beliefs cannot create reality. Let me show you what your beliefs actually are, how you contradict yourself, and how you could possibly create what you want.

Seth says that this book is an extension of The Nature of Personal Reality, and that is not an overstatement.

When people, for whatever reason, are convinced that they are not to be trusted --

We need not discuss the reasons. Everyone has their own reasons: lack of security, childhood trauma, suppression by parents, denial by colleagues, or having once done a losing business, a failed marriage, and so on. No matter what the reason, as long as you believe that you are not to be trusted, or that the universe is not safe -- that is, the universe is not benevolent, not gracious, not inclusive -- if you have these two beliefs:

Then they will not freely utilize their abilities, or explore the physical and mental environment. Instead, they will begin to draw their world inward, contract their abilities, and overcontrol their environment. They become frightened people.

This sentence reveals the root of the problem. Those who are convinced that they are not to be trusted, or who believe that this universe is not safe, will not "freely" utilize their abilities. See how well chosen this word is -- cannot freely. Remember this word: cannot freely utilize their abilities. Freely means without reservation, with full emotion, with great enthusiasm. That is what freely means. Limited, moderate -- none of that counts as freely.

Then they will instead draw their world inward, contract their abilities, stop using their abilities, and begin to control their environment -- building all kinds of fortresses, all kinds of barriers. Why? Because they feel the universe is not safe, because they feel they are not to be trusted. So in order to protect themselves, they build these fortresses and control their environment. They become frightened people.

And frightened people do not ask for spiritual or physical freedom.

This is a key sentence. They want cover. They do not want freedom. Physically and spiritually, they do not want freedom. They want cover.

They want a definite set of rules. They want to be told what is good and what is bad.

They need others to tell them what is good and what is bad, what is the right way to do things.

They tend toward compulsive patterns of behavior.

They seek leaders -- political, scientific, or religious -- to regulate their lives for them.

Whenever science is mentioned, Seth always uses a humorous tone. They will look for a leader. In this situation, Seth points out this problem. Once he points it out, we find it so obvious -- this matter really is that obvious. Observe yourself and the people around you. Is it not like this?

In religion, many religions are like this. Are they not living compulsive behaviors? Cannot eat meat, cannot kill living beings, cannot do this, cannot do that. This will create karma, that will create karma of speech -- all kinds of things. Various religions are like this. They tend toward this kind of compulsive behavior, and they take pleasure in it.

Why? Seth directly points out why again. Because there is no sense of power in their hearts. They have not taken back the power that belongs to them, have not taken back the rights that belong to them. They do not want to be free physically and spiritually. They do not want freedom. Do you understand? They are willing to be controlled by others. They are willing to find a guru for themselves, a spiritual leader, a boss at work, a boss in a company, a person who controls them emotionally -- it is all the same nature. So whether it is political, scientific, emotional, religious, or in various behaviors, it is all the same, all one pattern.

So now you know whether this problem is serious or not. When you do not trust yourself, the consequences that follow are this serious. He himself does not even know it. He hopes others will regulate his life, others will tell him what is right and what is wrong. He does not want to make judgments himself. He just says, the church said so, our guru said so, or the precepts say this is bad and that is bad -- he uses other people's rules to constrain himself, and even takes pleasure in it. You cannot even say anything to him. If you say something, he says, you unruly people still want to criticize me, when we are so self-disciplined -- and then there is nothing left to say.

These frightened people are filled with fear inside—whether this fear is given to them by religion, by society, or by whatever aspect—they have all been frightened. And then they no longer want freedom. They give up freedom on their own. Physical freedom—they just live out that kind of compulsive behavior; spiritual freedom they also no longer want, handing themselves over to others.

Are there very, very many people like this? Extremely many.

Closed Environments and Fanaticism

Then he says, in the next part of this book:

We will discuss people who are afraid of themselves, and the roles they pursue in this personal and social behavior.

The title of the next chapter is "People Who Are Afraid of Themselves." Because they are afraid of themselves, what kind of role do they seek in personal life and in group life?

To a certain degree, we will discuss closed environments—what closed environments? Jonestown, for example, was a closed environment. Many cult organizations are closed environments; many organizations that are not cults, orthodox religious organizations, are also closed environments—they do not accept other viewpoints, do not accept other beliefs, do not accept anything else coming in.

Seth says, let us first discuss those people in normal society who are afraid of themselves, and the roles they seek among certain behavior patterns in personal life and collective, social group life; then we will discuss, in some extreme situations, if they live in a closed environment—whether a pyramid scheme organization, some religious group, or some other secret group—what kind of role people with such beliefs will display:

Whether spiritual or physical, within it questioning becomes taboo and dangerous.

In this kind of closed environment, whether spiritual questioning or physical questioning is absolutely, utterly forbidden. If you live in a closed organization and you dare to challenge their theories or challenge their authority, that is extremely dangerous.

This kind of environment may also be private. It may not be an organization but individual—like the situation of what are generally called mentally disturbed patients. When this closed environment is not an organization or social group but an individual situation, it becomes a kind of mentally disturbed patient—he has drawn a closed area for himself, he lives in a closed, self-enclosed environment, whether physical closure or mental closure. Look at those mentally disturbed patients, they are all like this: physically they do not contact others, materially they do not contact others, mentally they also do not contact others, they completely isolate themselves, they cannot hear any questioning or any outside voice.

Or they may also be shared by many people—if it is an individual, it becomes a mental patient; if many people share it together, it becomes collective paranoia. Some cults are like this, collective paranoia, simply beyond reason. In religious fanatic sects—there are religious fanatic sects, and there are also scientific fanatic sects. Seth's words here are very harsh: it is not only these ignorant religious people who have fanatic sects; in science there are still fanatic sects. Whenever they shut themselves up in a closed environment, whenever they do not accept any questioning, then they are fanatic sects—whether religious or scientific.

Some people follow a purely personal fanaticism, with rules and regulations just as strict as those a dictator issues to frightened followers.

There are some purely personal fanaticisms—he has not joined any organization, nor joined any cult, but in his behavior and conduct he is the same as those fanatical members who have joined cults. It is as if a dictator had issued him some rules and regulations or codes of conduct, and he strictly follows, observes, and carries them out. Although he has not joined, he is silently practicing all of this.

He says the above situations do indeed exist, and he hopes that such a discussion will lead to greater understanding—let us have a higher perspective and greater understanding of why these things happen.

Of course, part of this book is devoted to introducing ideas that privately encourage greater productivity and creativity, and therefore automatically contribute to healthy and sound social ways.

Much of the content later in this book considers things from the individual level, encouraging everyone to have ideas of greater productivity and creativity. When each person changes, it therefore contributes to the formation of healthier and sounder social ways. He hopes our human society will move into a sounder and healthier way, rather than the current way of seeking authority everywhere, handing oneself over to others everywhere, and frightening oneself.

Counterparts

Then he says, now the title Ruburt gave is the title of Part Three—"People Who Are Afraid of Themselves." What about the titles of the first two parts? Part One goes without saying. Part Two, after Chapter Two, is titled "Framework 1 and Framework 2." So now it becomes Part Three. Rob's other titles can become part of the title of the next chapter—Chapter Six, which is "Religious and Scientific Fanatic Sects, and Personal Paranoia."

Then he says this session has ended. He says, do you have any other questions? Then Rob says, I have none. Seth says, then I wish you both good night.

In the following part, he points out that in Volume 2 of The "Unknown" Reality—because we have not yet covered this book, I do not want to discuss this issue too much—Seth begins to develop a theory of counterparts:

Simply put, the larger psychological self of each of us, or the entity, in any given century does not manifest only one physical life, but several, in order to gain far more experience through a variety of different roles. And these roles include different ages, nationalities, languages, genders and identities, family roles, and so on.

This is extremely interesting. Because this issue is very complex, and it is not a principle that is so easy to explain clearly.

For example, your entity at the same time, in this physical world, has only one physical existence, only one reincarnated you. But at this point he also proposes that there are more of your existences—that is, this entity sends out more physical bodies into this one period, this same era, to reincarnate, in order to experience differences. The relationship between these and you, he calls them counterparts.

So what is the relationship between these counterparts and the other reincarnational yous, and the probable yous? We will expand on this when we get to The "Unknown" Reality; do not discuss it here for now, because it is too complex, and one or two sentences cannot make it clear. Just know that on the level of our soul, this world is far more complex than we can imagine. Do not always try to use a simple model or a simple structure to sort out and understand this universe, and then try to depict it very simply—always trying to make a diagram or a structure like Buddhism or the Bible to explain it all. Its complexity exceeds the imagination of ordinary people.

Rob says, according to his understanding of the counterpart theory—a person may or may not encounter some of his counterparts, although they are scattered across different countries and cultures in the world. However, Jane and Rob have already encountered several of their respective counterparts, mainly through the now-discontinued ESP class. But theoretically, they basically would not encounter them—you have a counterpart, but you may not encounter him; he may live in Africa. But sometimes you may actually encounter him, because modern transportation and communication methods, ways of connecting, are already vastly different from before, so things that would not have been encountered before may now actually be encountered.

Rob's Supplement

Finally, there is the part about Rob, in his dreams, letting painting and writing communicate more and relate more with each other. Rob says recently he painted some small oil paintings of his more vivid dream images:

When I tried to reduce the hesitant, brilliant dream components into the static pictures we are so accustomed to, I found it great fun.

When Rob wanted to paint those gorgeous and varied dream components onto canvas, he found it great fun, with far more challenge than he had expected. In terms of both technique and emotion:

Each small painting became a unique exploration.

And not every attempt succeeded. But he thought with great regret: why did I not try to paint my dream images when I was much younger? And why do we so rarely hear of other painters doing the same thing—painting the scenes in their dreams? Rob personally does not know any painter who paints in this way, does not know anyone who paints what they see in their dreams in this way.

---

注释与核实

1. Source: Jane Roberts, The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events: A Seth Book (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/601893/the-individual-and-the-nature-of-mass-events-by-jane-roberts-notes-and-cover-art-by-robert-f-butts/) ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

2. Source: Wikipedia, "Diamond Sutra" (https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E9%87%91%E5%89%9B%E7%B6%93) ↩

3. Source: Jane Roberts, The Nature of Personal Reality: A Seth Book (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Nature_of_Personal_Reality.html?id=_uSztdbBToAC) ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

4. Source: Wikipedia, "Reinventing Organizations" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinventing_Organizations) ↩

5. This claim could not be verified. ↩

6. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "ARPANET | Definition, Map, Cold War, First Message, & History" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/ARPANET) ↩

7. This claim could not be verified. ↩

8. Source: Wikipedia, "Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Deus:_A_Brief_History_of_Tomorrow) ↩

9. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Neuralink | American company" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Neuralink) ↩

10. This claim could not be verified. ↩

11. Source: Forbes, "'Where Are The Aliens?' Jack Ma and Elon Musk's Weird Debate on Space, AI and the Future of Work" (2019) (https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2019/08/29/where-are-the-aliens-jack-ma-and-elon-musks-weird-debate-on-space-ai-and-the-future-of-work/) ↩

12. This claim could not be verified. ↩

13. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Tao-te Ching" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tao-te-Ching) ↩

14. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Lunyu" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lunyu) ↩

15. Source: Jane Roberts (Seth), The Nature of Personal Reality (1974) (https://archive.org/stream/PdfsSethMaterial/JaneRobertsTheNatureOfPersonalReality_djvu.txt) ↩

16. According to Mike's original words, it was "James Williams"; upon verification, the correct name is William James, an American philosopher and psychologist. (Source: Harvard University Department of Psychology, "William James," https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/william-james) ↩

17. Source: Susan M. Watkins, Conversations With Seth: Book One (https://openroadmedia.com/ebook/conversations-with-seth-book-one/9781609255381) ↩

18. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Jonestown" (https://www.britannica.com/event/Jonestown) ↩

19. Source: Wikipedia, "Liao-Fan's Four Lessons" (https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E4%BA%86%E5%87%A1%E5%9B%9B%E8%A8%93) ↩

20. Source: Bible Gateway, "Genesis 2:18–4:16" (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%E5%88%9B%E4%B8%96%E8%AE%B0+2%3A18-4%3A16%2CGenesis+2%3A18-4%3A16&version=CNVS%3BCCB%3BNIV) ↩

21. Source: Library of Congress, The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments (1853) (https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2010lincolnbible/?sp=36) ↩

22. This claim could not be verified. ↩

23. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Jonestown" (https://www.britannica.com/event/Jonestown) ↩

24. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Jonestown" (https://www.britannica.com/event/Jonestown) ↩

25. Source: Time and Date AS, "Calendar for Year 1979 (United States)" (https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1979&country=1) ↩