The "Reading Guide" and "Key Points" for this chapter were summarized by an AI editor based on the main text below; they are not things Mike said during the lecture. The main text comes from Mike's commentary, and the blockquotes are Seth's original words (the portions Mike read aloud).
Introduction
This chapter centers on evolution, cellular consciousness, and changes in genetic information. The content refutes the traditional evolutionary view that attributes species change to external environmental selection, arguing instead that inner intent determines outer change, that cells carry prior memory and naturally cooperate across species. The text also discusses how beliefs, emotions, and intent direct cellular activity, influencing lifespan and genetic expression, and how damaged cells can draw in new genetic material through consciousness and the principle of time reversal, rather than relying on mechanical technology.
Key Points of This Chapter
- Species change is not caused by elimination through the external environment; inner intent is the cause that brings about outer change.
- Cells carry memories of previous forms and environments, and can survive under extremely broad conditions.
- The minerals, plants, animals, atoms, and molecules on Earth are not separate and competing with one another; rather, a natural cooperation exists among them.
- Beliefs, emotions, and intent direct cellular activity, thereby influencing individual lifespan and genetic expression.
- The genetic data of damaged cells can be introduced through consciousness and the principle of time reversal, rather than relying on delicate mechanical manipulation.
Main Text
Part Four: Exploration
The title of Part Four is "Exploration." It examines the relationship between the psyche and private life—that is, your personal life—and human experience, studying the relationship between your spirituality and personal life, and the overall experience of humanity. The second theme is the study of probable realities as a route of your personal experience: there are many routes in your personal experience—are there also probable routes, your personal experience as related to the past and future civilizations of humanity? What is the relationship between the past and future of human civilization and your personal experience? This is one of the themes of Part Four.
Session 705: Evolution, Cellular Consciousness, and the Alteration of Genetic Information
This session began on Monday, June 24, 1974, at 9:09 p.m. Rob said that Session 704 had been held a week earlier, and in it Seth had given the title for Part Four. Because so many days had passed, and because they had been busy with many other things, Rob said they had completely forgotten where they were in The "Unknown" Reality. While they were waiting for Seth to come through, Rob read the title of Part Four aloud to Jane, and Jane said, "I have absolutely no idea what that means."
So really, you can see that when Jane was transmitting this book, she basically had no idea what she was talking about. In The Nature of Personal Reality, she roughly knew what the theme of each session was; but in this book, during the process of Seth's transmission, she had no impression at all. After the transmission was over, she had no memory of it whatsoever—she needed to read the book afterward to know what she had transmitted.
Seth began by saying:
Let us begin this step with a brief discussion of evolution.
First, let us talk about evolution. Let us for the moment place evolution within our framework of time, as you usually do—we usually say that evolution certainly requires time; without time, what evolution could you speak of?
In the past, there was a very solid belief that every species was selfish, scheming for its own survival. Every species was seen as competing with other species, and within that framework, cooperation was merely a byproduct of the primary drive for survival. For example, one species might make use of another species in order to survive—there are symbiotic relationships and parasitic relationships, which are two kinds of relationships in biological evolution. Our traditional view holds that every living thing is selfish, but for the sake of its own survival, it sometimes has no choice but to cooperate with other species, forming such symbiotic or parasitic relationships. This is our traditional human viewpoint: the essence is selfishness, but in order to live better, one is forced to cooperate with others. Our current society also thinks this way.
Species were thought to change, and how did the formation of these variations come about? It was because certain changes in the environment forced a species to adapt to them; if it could not adapt, it would be eliminated by those environmental changes. If it could not adapt to the ocean, it disappeared. The driving force behind it was always projected outward—that is, external change. This is the general human viewpoint.
Seth said that all of this presents a very erroneous picture. We take the inner changes of species as being caused by external environmental conditions—that it is because of the environment that they change; but in essence, it has always been internal.
In physical terms, the earth itself has its own kind of gestalt consciousness. From a certain perspective, the earth has an overall gestalt consciousness. If you insist on asking what the earth's gestalt consciousness is like, Seth said, let me give you an example:
You can think of the earth's consciousness as a great slope of determination, rising in gradations from relatively sluggish dust and stone, looking upward toward the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms. (Session 705)
A slope of determination—that is, upward, toward the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms, a slope from low to high. He said, this is the way you understand it; if you insist that I explain it to you, I can explain it to you this way.
Even in such an example, in such an analogy, you must still remember that those kingdoms are not actually separated in this way. Although I say there is a stepwise development from relatively sluggish consciousness to more advanced, rapidly responsive consciousness, they are not separated like that. Each one is closely connected to the others, and anything that happens in any one kingdom does not fail to affect the other kingdoms. Any changes that occur in any one species affect all other species.
However, among those systems that appear to be separate, there exists a remarkable natural cooperation. For example, rocks and soil—you think they are separate from plants and animals. How could they possibly be separate? If they were separate, where would plants grow? Don't plants all grow in the soil? Without plants, what would animals eat? They are in a relationship of mutual interdependence. He said, among the species that appear to you to be separate from one another, they have a remarkable natural cooperation, an innate cooperation.
If you remember that even atoms and molecules are conscious, then it will be easier for you to understand that there is indeed a certain kind of determination unifying these kingdoms. What determination unifies them? It is that all things are conscious, and it is this unified consciousness that unifies the entire kingdom.
In our terms, the development of your own consciousness did not come about because your species triumphed in any external environment. According to our terms of time, our present consciousness—the self-consciousness of the present ego—did not come about because we won out in the process of natural environmental selection, while those other species were not as fortunate as we humans. That is not the case. In fact, any person's reliance upon their own consciousness depends upon a constant and miraculous cooperation that exists among the mineral, animal, and plant worlds. He said that this self-consciousness of ours is dependent upon this cooperation among the animal, plant, and mineral worlds.
That inner intent always forms any external change; inner change is decisive. This applies to any scale you use—whether from atoms and molecules, all the way up to planets and the universe, the inner determines the outer. Consciousness forms the environment, and the environment itself is also conscious. He emphasized again that consciousness forms our environment, and the environment itself is also conscious—the two are mutually reinforcing.
Molecules and atoms themselves operate within the scope of their own probabilities. In their own way, they seek all possible developments; they strive as much as they can to transform—all possible combinations, all possible developments. When they form living organisms, they become the material basis for the changes of species. Whether animal or plant, in essence they are all composed of atoms and molecules. When atoms and molecules form living organisms, then the changes of these biological species all require them as the material basis. And these atoms and molecules themselves are also conscious.
He said that the adaptability of the body is not merely a mechanical adaptation or quality. Our body adapts to the environment not merely through physical, mechanical, or biochemical adaptive functions. Cells have an inner ability that you have far from discovered—they contain within them the memory of all prior forms of which they have been a part. The memories from before the formation of this cell, including those ancient memories, the memories of all environmental probabilities—it has all of them. That is to say, from a certain perspective, this cell is actually suited to, or capable of adapting to, survival in any environment. This underlying cellular memory can guarantee that the cell can survive in all kinds of environments. Then why is it that some survive and some do not? It is mainly caused by inner reasons, not by the external causes that we humans observe—that this temperature or humidity is suitable for this survival.
Here I want to make a digression. Seth said one sentence:
In a certain fashion, you cannot destroy life with a nuclear disaster. (Session 705)
From our human perspective, if a third world war were to occur, and it were a nuclear war, then humanity and the earth's living things might all be destroyed. Because under that kind of nuclear radiation, under the premise of a nuclear winter, humans would be unable to survive, because that environment would not meet the conditions for human survival, so we say that humanity would be destroyed at that point. But Seth said, that is not the case. Cells have the possibility of surviving in any environment. Moreover, this is not the first time the earth has experienced a nuclear war. From a certain perspective, in certain parallel space-times it has already happened, and our cellular memory at that level knows how to survive in such an environment.
Assuming the conditions happened to coincide, you would of course destroy life as you know it, bringing the life forms you are familiar with to an end—the current species would be gone. But in a broader sense, mutated life would appear. Our existing life forms might all cease to exist, and other life forms would exist. And only by your own standards would they be mutations—you think they are mutations, because compared to you they have changed, they have mutated; but to themselves, they are perfectly natural life. A mutated life form would not feel that it is mutated; it would feel that it is the natural one, and you are the mutation.
What does this passage mean in simple terms? It means that humanity—not just humanity, but all the things in the natural world—did not come to form today's ecological environment on earth because of the selection and elimination of external environments. This is what traditional biologists, environmentalists, or paleontological researchers tell you, and this in itself is wrong. It was not produced by such a process of selection and elimination; it has always been this way. That is the first point.
The second point is that living things can actually adapt to all kinds of environments. Whether they choose to live or not to live is determined by their inner factors, or by a collective decision, a blueprint, rather than by the external environment as you imagine.
If life were as you imagine it, then life would be impossible in many places. For example, humans have been exploring the deep sea all along. Deep-sea probes go deeper and deeper, and in the deep sea—places where we thought life was impossible, such as several thousand meters or even over ten thousand meters below the surface, the deepest part of the Mariana Trench—they have discovered life, which is amazing. Do you know what ten thousand meters means? The ordinary military submarines currently used by humanity—those enormous things built by various countries around the world, those giant nuclear strategic submarines with a displacement of around twenty thousand tons—their general maximum diving depth is only around 600 meters1. They can go deeper for short periods, but not much deeper. I don't know what level technology has reached now; perhaps at most 800 meters. Because for every 10 meters you go down in water, you gain one more atmosphere of pressure. At 100 meters it is 10 atmospheres, and at 600 meters it is 60 atmospheres. If you are not a science or engineering student, you may not understand how great the pressure of 60 atmospheres is; if you have studied it, you will know.
So in those places several thousand meters or tens of thousands of meters under the sea—suppose it is ten thousand meters—that means a thousand atmospheres of pressure. If even 60 atmospheres is beyond what humanity's most advanced alloy-steel submarines can withstand, how do you think those creatures can bear it? How do they survive there? And in the deep sea there is no light—what do they eat? How do they survive? It is under conditions that humans cannot imagine that they survive.
And we have also discovered living things in many places where volcanic magma erupts, and in hot spring pools. Some temperatures have reached over a hundred degrees or several hundred degrees, and living things have still been found. Even in completely sealed underground caverns, life has been discovered. So this is one of humanity's blind spots: we always consider this question from our own perspective. Therefore when we explore outer space, we think there is no life on other planets—we judge by human standards, saying that without oxygen, without such an environment, living things cannot survive. How do you know that other living things necessarily need that?
Now let us return to our main topic. What is the fact?
The so-called process of evolution is highly dependent upon all the attributes of life, and upon the cooperative tendencies inherent in all species. (Session 705)
It is highly dependent upon this, not upon the external environment.
There is no reincarnation of a soul, no transmigration—this word is actually better translated as transmigration—in which a person's entire personality comes back as an animal. We often say that a person is reborn, and then returns as an animal. Can one come back as an animal? Within the physical framework, there is a constant intermixing. Therefore, a person's cells may become the cells of a plant or an animal.
What is being said here is the viewpoint often expressed in Buddhism, and Hinduism also has this kind of reincarnation view—if you kill living beings, if you always eat meat, then in your next reincarnation you may become an animal, and so on. Here he is refuting this viewpoint: the idea that you become an animal and come back again simply does not exist. Why? Of course, the reverse is also true. That is, your cells will form the cells of animals and plants, and the cells of animals and plants will also form your cells. The cells that once formed part of a person's brain, in their own way... the cells that now make up your own body have been combined and broken down many times, to form other parts of the natural environment. Our cells are all like this, disassembled and reassembled like parts.
So recently scientists discovered a phenomenon—it seems like a few years ago, a Japanese scientific team discovered that the human body has an autophagic response2. What is the cellular autophagic response? When a cell ages, after it has aged, we previously thought that the cell died, became waste, and was then excreted or metabolized. Later, Japanese scientists discovered that humans have a very strong self-devouring ability: when a cell ages, other cells will eat it, taking the useful substances inside and combining them into what those cells need. Or from a certain perspective, you can understand it as disassembling old or aging cells into different parts, and using these parts—proteins, amino acids, or other components—to reassemble new cells. Humans have been doing this work in large quantities all along; it is not an isolated phenomenon, it is massive. In other words, most of the new cells in your body are generated by disassembling and recombining these cells.
So you understand that our cells are in fact disassembled and recombined countless times. This was said in the 1970s, but I remember that scientific research was only discovered a few years ago. Seth had already pointed this out many times back then.
This inner physical reincarnation of consciousness has always been extremely important. That is, our consciousness is indestructible, but on the material level it continually transforms its form and is reborn. If you only look at the material, then you will think it is transmigration and reincarnation, coming back again; but from the perspective of consciousness, it is merely a transformation of energy forms, shifting back and forth between the material and the non-material, and it represents a natural method of communication. The transformation between materials is a method of communication. What method of communication? It is "I am within you, and you are within me"—it unifies all species and all material life.
Let us put it this way: we humans have earth, water, fire, and wind. What are earth, water, fire, and wind? They are minerals—earth, water, fire, and wind are all lifeless. Are they not part of human life? Right? Do they not give life not only to humans, but also to plants? All our plants grow in the ground—that is all mineral, that is all earth—the "earth" in earth, water, fire, and wind. So whether plants, animals, including humans, including minerals, they are all mutually transforming. In other words, your life force has me in it, and my life force has you in it.
So within all physical organisms, there is an impulse toward development and change, and at the same time there is a stable pattern there, within which such change can occur. They have an inner impulse to change, to undergo transformation, but they also have a pattern that stabilizes the existing state—these two achieve a balance. How do variations come about? It is the impulse for change that finds expression and development within this stable pattern. Because this change needs to occur within this stable pattern; without this stable pattern, how could you speak of change? Where would change come from? So that is how it is.
Of course, historically speaking, you follow a single-line mode of thinking, so you see a picture in which fish left the ocean and became reptiles, from these reptiles mammals emerged, and finally apes and humans appeared. I admit this is a simplified account, but it is what most people think the process of evolution is.
That is how we think—that humans came from the ocean. Then everyone asks, where is the transitional process in this transformation from the ocean? From one species changing into another species, it cannot just snap and change in an instant; there must be a transitional period in between. You say that fish became reptiles—was there not a transition in between, something half-fish half-reptile? But there is none. Everyone searched for a long time and still could not find such transitional things. Then everyone said, no problem—it is not that we cannot find them, it is that these things have already disappeared into the vast ocean; these transitional things have already died, so there are no fossils. Because there are fossils on land, but there are no fossils in the ocean, so you cannot find them. That is perfectly normal.
That is pure nonsense—scientists are lying through their teeth. Because scientists have discovered that many creatures that lived hundreds of millions of years ago are still alive today. They existed hundreds of millions of years ago, but have those creatures changed? No change—what they looked like hundreds of millions of years ago is what they look like now. Hundreds of millions of years without the slightest change. Then how could the transformation of humans from apes have been accomplished in just a few million years? Or even tens of thousands of years, or one or two million years. You know that one or two million years and several hundred million years are not on the same order of magnitude. If a creature has not evolved or changed in hundreds of millions of years, then on what basis do you claim that this animal, or 90% of the species in our world today, evolved in just a few million years?
A scientist did a study—I forget whose video I watched the other day that talked about this. A scientist did a systematic study, taking all of humanity's living things—everything in the world, all living things—and did a unified analysis of their genes. Genes can be traced back to their origins; through genes one can trace upward to find their relatedness and similarities. Then they studied all the living things we can observe, and discovered a very frightening phenomenon: 90% of the living things in this world today all appeared suddenly in the same period, roughly a few million years ago3—they appeared all at once. Before those few million years, these genes seemed as if they had never appeared on earth at all. Another 10% of living things have existed continuously from ancient times to the present, and the youngest of this 10% has a history of over a hundred million years. This completely overturned the understanding of these biologists and scientists, because the theory of evolution simply cannot explain it—it is completely inexplicable. Previously, we humans did not have genetics; we could only study through fossils and speculate through conjecture. Now that we have genes, there is actually great convenience—through genes one can trace back to a very deep level. I am using this typical, small example to analyze it for you.
So the word "progress" is very strange. For example, you would not imagine the situation reversed. You would only imagine that we humans went from fish to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, mammals to apes, apes to humans—such a process. He said you can only go along this single line; you rarely think of it going in reverse. What does reverse mean? It means that a reptile could also have human-level intelligence, or even intelligence higher than humans. You would not think about the problem this way; you think reptiles must be lower than humans—how could they possibly have human intelligence, or intelligence higher than humans? So very few of you would imagine a conscious reptilian being.
In your view, it seems as if the direction you have taken is the only possible direction. Seth pointed this out here. If you combine this with some recent—what is it called, the Lacerta Files—you can see that there is an interview record of a reptilian being, a reptilian humanoid from underground, a highly intelligent reptilian creature. Whether it is true or false, let us not discuss that for now; if you are interested, you can search for it. Such an underground civilization, a reptilian being, a reptilian humanoid whose civilization is far more advanced than human civilization—this is unimaginable; we humans have never truly seen it. So Seth here deliberately pointed this out—conscious reptilian beings. You can also treat it as just casual talk, but does it not carry a strong hint here? That is, those reptilian beings we often talk about.
You identify a highly evolved self-consciousness with the development of your own species, and with your own kind of perceptual mechanisms. (Session 705)
You identify self-consciousness with the development of your human species, and with your kind of perceptual mechanisms—you mutually identify them, mutually validate them. Whenever you examine any other kind of life, you take these as the laws and conditions.
What this sentence means in simple terms is that we humans take ourselves far too seriously. We take our human form, our life form, and our scientific civilization, and the environment in which we live, as the only conditions for the existence of life, or the conditions for the existence of highly intelligent life. Then when we look at other life, we use this standard to judge—anything that does not conform to this is not highly intelligent; only what conforms to this is highly intelligent. We humans are far too arrogant, taking ourselves as merely one branch of a species, yet using this one branch to speculate about the entire universe—you should be like humans. They take human nature's thinking, human nature's modes of thought, the so-called human self-cognition—that is, everything currently in your mind—and project this ego part onto the universe for consideration, thinking the universe should conform to what they are like. Don't you think that is utterly ridiculous? We find it ridiculous, but they do not find it ridiculous; they think the universe should be just as humans imagine it.
In your system of probabilities there are no reptilian beings; in our system there is no such branch. However, in other probabilities, they truly do exist. I mention this only to tell you that the evolutionary system you recognize is only one of certain systems.
What you currently recognize is only one of certain probability systems. But other physical foundations are latent within your own cellular structure. These evolutionary possibilities all exist within your cells; you have only experienced one possibility, but within your cells are latent all possibilities, all evolutionary paths—every possibility can be evolved out.
You think evolution has already ended—that after the development of a highly intelligent creature like humans, it is over? But the impetus of evolution comes from within the very nature of consciousness itself, and it will never stop. Evolution is consciousness forever seeking the greatest number of forms of expression, the greatest number of forms of manifestation—how could it stop? It has always been this way; it will not stop.
Nowadays there is a popular saying in some places that human consciousness is now a new factor in evolution. Because human consciousness can decide in which direction to evolve; humans can now modify genes, through DNA editing—I mentioned the DNA scissors earlier, that chromosomes can be cut directly—human consciousness is indeed a factor that must be considered in evolution. But that new consciousness—what consciousness is it? It is human consciousness—that so-called newly discovered, new consciousness, it has always been latent there. You humans are only now saying, "So in the process of evolution, human consciousness plays a very large role"—this is your current popular saying. Actually, that consciousness has been playing a role there all along; it is not that it only exists now that you have discovered it. You humans are only now beginning to recognize its existence.
Every consciousness is aware of itself as itself—every consciousness possesses the ability to be aware of itself as itself, as consciousness; otherwise it could not be called consciousness. That energy which has the ability to be aware of itself as itself—that is consciousness. Every consciousness is self-aware; certainly, that which cannot be self-aware is not called consciousness. It may not be self-aware in the same way you are—for example, whether it can feel love, whether it can feel certain emotions, is different. It may not reflect upon its own condition; it may not think about what state it is in now. However, on the other hand, they may not have that need.
Seth shifted his tone and said, you humans should not be smug, thinking that you can reflect on your own state, that you can think about yourselves, think about where humans came from and where you are going. He said this seems like a high-level idea to you, but others actually have no such need -- it is not that they lack the ability. He comes out again to remind us not to be smug. Having this ability does not prove how advanced you are; on the contrary, it may prove that you are quite lowly, that you need this ability to repeatedly confirm the necessity of your own existence and what the meaning of your existence is. It is as if your existence has no meaning in itself, as if existing is not even supposed to happen, or as if existence requires you to find a meaning for it before it can proceed. He said others have no such need; only humans have this need. We will not call it higher or lower; we can only say it is different. Some need it, some do not.
Let me add a remark here. Many people do not understand enlightenment -- I have talked about this many times before -- actually, after you become enlightened, you have this state, meaning you no longer have this need. You no longer search for all kinds of reasons for your own existence, or search for all kinds of meanings. Existence needs no reason, existence needs no meaning, and existence needs no need at all. This kind of self-knowing, self-reflection, self-awareness -- there is awareness, but there is no need to search for such reasons.
So the future development of your species depends on your present ideas and beliefs. Where you go in the future depends entirely on your present ideas and beliefs. For each individual, this also applies on the genetic level.
For example, if you believe that you can live to a healthy and happy old age -- say, to ninety-nine -- then even in Western civilization, you can accomplish this. Why single out the West? Because in the West there are not many people who truly live long lives. Although the overall average life expectancy there seems longer than in many places, the places with truly long-lived people are not in Western society. In many very primitive, very backward places, there are instead many long-lived tribes. I have mentioned this many times, for example Bama in Guangxi, that land of longevity. It is actually very closed off and backward, but everyone there lives long. The proportion of centenarians in the population reaches some percentage I cannot remember clearly; you can go look it up. It has the highest proportion of centenarians in the world.
He said in your Western society, for example, if you can live to ninety-nine:
Your emotions, intents, and your beliefs will direct your cellular activity, and bring out those attributes and natural abilities that will ensure such a condition. (Session 705)
How can you live to ninety-nine and still be very vigorous? Your emotions and intents are very important, and beliefs are very important. Of course the cells need to support this condition, but how can the cells keep you healthy into your nineties? They have this ability; the cells inherently have this ability, so you do not need to worry about it.
In other words, a person is like a car whose parts are constantly being replaced; there is no real problem of aging. Because your cells are always renewing themselves, for a material existence in which all the parts of the whole body can be replaced at any time, from a certain angle there is no problem of aging. But in fact we really do age. We will not go into this aging again, because there are many, many places where this issue is discussed separately. To put it bluntly, why do we age? This is also by design. That is, a physical body like ours, a material form like ours, needs this kind of aging. If it did not age, you can imagine: if this body of yours stayed unchanged, say, for ten thousand years, at first you would be ecstatic, but in the end you would collapse, wanting to die and unable to die. With your present appearance, your present body structure, your present form forever unchanged for ten thousand years -- imagine what state you would be in? In the end you would be so sick of yourself you would vomit. So this is very interesting; try it and you will know.
This is a biological attribute, a natural ability. How long can the human body actually live? This was actually stated long ago in the Huangdi Neijing. The normal lifespan of the human body, except under extremely special circumstances, is normally one hundred twenty-five years at the limit4; beyond that it is not very possible. Why? Because it was designed that way. Just as when you design something, the design naturally has its own lifespan.
He said there are groups of people in some isolated regions who hold this kind of belief -- that their bodies can be maintained very well and can remain so into a very advanced age. So those isolated regions have not been influenced by these Western ideas. Why does he single out the West? Because the Western medical system does not promote the development of your body or make you healthy; it treats you as an ATM, making you constantly see doctors, take medicine, and rely on the medical system to squeeze all the money out of you. I am being a bit excessive in saying this, but on the whole, the overall trend is like this. So he specifically emphasizes that in the West, being able to live to ninety-nine and still be healthy is already quite a miracle. Why? It means you can completely avoid the influence of all kinds of Western media propaganda and the medical system before you can live that long.
And in all these cases, the body will respond to your needs. If you feel that living past one hundred in good health is possible, then the body will let you live very healthily. The same situation also applies to races, or more precisely, to your species. Race and species are a little different -- race means, for example, white people count as one race, yellow people as another race; species means humanity as a whole is one species. Of course there is no need to be too particular about this kind of terminology; it is the same.
Within the cells themselves, there is endless creativity -- why? Because they themselves operate across time and space. That is something you as a species have not made use of. We have not made use of the infinite creativity within the cells; we have gone outside to seek it instead.
Because your beliefs fall far short of your innate biological spirituality and wisdom. Compared with the innate biological spirituality of our bodies, our intellectual wisdom is far inferior. The more we interfere, the faster we die. To put it bluntly, many people ask about health preservation. Seth's attitude toward health preservation is just one thing: if you want to live well, if you want a healthy body, then do not manage it. The less you interfere, the better you live. The more you interfere, the more you only produce the opposite effect. So health preservation comes down to one thing: leave it alone.
If your ideas begin to change -- and your ideas are beginning to change -- unless you change your frameworks, you will continue to emphasize medical and technological manipulation. He said merely changing your ideas is useless, because you live within such a social structure. If you change but the people around you do not, it will influence you and pull at you. Unless the framework of humanity as a whole changes, you will also emphasize medicine and technology; there is no way around it.
In isolated cases, this lets you see certain possible results on a purely bodily basis. That is, using modern science, technology, and medicine to cut you off from nature and look at the material level of your body alone can indeed solve many problems. However, these technologies only work on these levels, and for the masses they will not work. Nor can this extend an effective, productive life for you. This kind of science and technology will not extend the effective, productive lifespan of humanity as a whole, unless you also change concepts and beliefs in other areas and learn the inner dynamics of the psyche.
What he means is that if humanity cannot awaken as a whole, relying solely on the awakening of a few individuals and the things of a few individuals cannot change the lifespan of humanity as a whole -- meaning the effective, productive lifespan, not the meaningless kind where you lie in a hospital unable to move and live five more years. And this extension of life is something medicine and so-called technology cannot solve. They will tell you that with the development of science and technology, the average human lifespan is extending. If you look carefully at the charts, you will find that this extension is not very obvious, and the later it gets, the slower it becomes, and there is already not much room for further progress.
The functioning of the cells is, really, on the one hand outside of time; and on the other hand, it has a firm foundation within time. Actually it is not just the cells; every one of us is the same. But he speaks of the cells alone, so from the standpoint of the cells: on the one hand they operate outside of time and space, and on the other hand they operate within time and space. Therefore there arises a soundness of the body as a space-time organism -- see, Seth has coined another new term -- why soundness? It operates outside of time and space, and at the same time has a stable material foundation within time and space; these two together guarantee its soundness.
Indeed, on a conscious level, you have not yet been able to operate outside of time. We cannot, on the conscious level, operate our material bodies outside of time. We are indeed limited by time; that is certain.
When you learn to some extent to free yourselves from the limitations of those dimensions, you do not merely reproduce or return to some more generalized condition; you actually add a new element to that condition. How should we understand this? When you leap free of the limitations of time, it is not that you return to some more expansive condition -- when you leave the limitations of time and space, it is not that you return to some past point in time, or enter into some bodily state under a condition without time limitations.
What he is saying is that it seems as if you return to the past of time and space. For example, if you now have cancer, you might through a time-space reversal of the cells return to the past. But when you return to that past, it is not the static past you imagine. Does that condition not also include your present consciousness? Is new consciousness not intervening?
Let me give a simple example, so this is easier to understand; otherwise you will not know what he is trying to say. For example, you now have cancer, but through a method of treatment -- an alteration of consciousness, through spiritual study, through the point of power in the present -- you return to the past, to that probable you in another probable parallel world. In that state you do not have cancer, and the cells of your body are all healthy. Then through a method, you change that past bodily state, or rather change the subsequent probabilities, and you enter into a parallel world or a probable reality in which you did not get cancer. But then you bring the cellular mechanism of that probable reality into your present body.
Here, using the language of the three-dimensional world makes it a bit unclear, a bit convoluted. If you insist on using the three-dimensional world, it is a disordered, paradoxical, mutually contradictory and conflicting thing. I can only first explain it in this seemingly chaotic, mutually contradictory language. Actually it is not that you return to that world; we are only saying it this way for simplicity, because saying too much is too tiring. Actually it is that you activate the state of the cells of the you in that time and space who did not get cancer, the you in another parallel time-space -- you activate that possibility -- but it is activated within this time-space of yours.
I emphasize again, what he says over and over means that there is something inner to it. You can simply say, I returned to that healthy body in that parallel world; you can also say, my frequency aligned with it, we became the same frequency; you can also say, you activated the possibility within your cells of the state of not having cancer. But no matter which way you put it, this later state of yours -- from the human time-space perspective, the state of having had cancer and then being cured, and then not having cancer -- is different from the state of never having had cancer before.
This is what he means by "the condition has a new element added." Never having had cancer, with cells always healthy, and having had it and then curing it -- curing it through your beliefs, your ideas, your methods of spiritual study -- that cured state is different from the state of never having had it and always being healthy. Like the girl from India I mentioned the other day: if she had never had cancer, never reached that near-death state, she would not have had that kind of feeling. That experience and that realization are different, right? Yes, that is the new element.
The kind of self-awareness you possess is unique -- our kind of self-awareness, each person's is different, but every kind is unique. What does this mean? It seems as if this comes out of nowhere, and he does not expand on it, so we will not expand on it either. Simply put, in every state of consciousness, your kind of awareness is different. That is, the awareness of having had cancer and being cured, and the awareness of never having had cancer, are completely different. It is not that now that you no longer have cancer it is as if everything is the same; for the cells it is also the same.
As an individual, each of your victories is reflected in the knowledge of your species and of the cells. Your victory over cancer, or a change you make, an adjustment on the cellular level, is both your victory and the victory of humanity as a whole.
In a manner of speaking, from a certain angle, you are your own variant. We humans are the variant of ourselves -- we are not a variant of apes, not a variant of monkeys, not a variant of mammals. This time he emphasizes this. Humans are the variant of humans. You did not change from another species; you are your own variant. It is just that your cells have many possibilities; you choose which direction you want to change, creatively altering the form of the cells -- you can change the form of the cells and become what you want to be.
For example, when your fate seems to depend on heredity, then the transmission of concepts and beliefs is involved in it. This point is very important.
When each of you -- or humanity as a whole, it is the same from whichever angle we look -- when you believe that your future fate is determined by genetic inheritance, that is what we now believe: genetic technology and modern science are all the rage, and this determines everything, as if the material things of our body's cells determine everything. He said this is what you humans think; you think that the future development and fate of an individual and the future development and fate of humanity as a whole are all determined by your genetic inheritance.
What is it really? Actually it is your concepts and beliefs that play the key role in the middle. It is not the genes that are at work; it is your beliefs, your ideas, your concepts that play the decisive role in this process. It merely manifests on the genes, on the material level, on the cellular level -- when you use scientific instruments to test it, it manifests on the genes. But what is the inner operating mechanism? It is your concepts, it is your beliefs. It is not the genes; the genes are the manifested result.
Then he said, your beliefs and concepts transmit signals to the chromosomes, causing the chromosomes to change. So whether for you personally or for the future development of human civilization, beliefs and concepts are the key, not changes in the external environment or changes in our material world.
It can be said that they create miniature self-images. What are your cells, your DNA, your chromosomes? They are a miniature self-image of you. Within every chromosome in every cell, there exists a self-image of your future development; it is written in the chromosomes. I say this from the material angle, but actually that information is countless times more than what can be presented on the chromosomes; it is not even on the same order of magnitude. It is as if within your cells there is a nonphysical existence, and that nonphysical existence is connected to a cloud-based system, and within it are all the information and all the possibilities of your personal development and the development of humanity as a whole. So which one actually manifests in the cells? That is decided by your beliefs, by your concepts. Whichever one you want to manifest on the cellular level, it will cause changes in the chromosomes, and in this way it can become a new genetic mechanism, causing changes in the individual or in the next generation of humanity.
With this explanation, you should be able to understand. The chromosome is only a form of expression, only a carrier; the core is your beliefs, your concepts, reflected in the cells, reflected in the cells through the chromosomes.
In many cases, these images -- what images, self-images -- can be changed. Your self-image can be changed. How is it changed? But not with your existing technology, not with our current science and genetic technology. The future direction of your development, what you will develop into, is all written in your cells. He said this thing can be changed, but not by your human material methods. How is it changed?
Basically the cell's comprehension is across time, and so there is a way to introduce new genetic information to a now so-called damaged cell. (Session 705)
The cell is across time; its comprehension is across time. There is a way to give new genetic information to a cell that is now damaged. This basically involves consciousness, not delicate mechanical manipulation -- the process of introducing this new genetic information into a damaged cell is not accomplished by your scientific instruments, but is accomplished in consciousness, not by medical devices. It also involves a principle of time reversal. Remember, time reversal. It is not as you imagine; it is a kind of time reversal. And this is even more beyond human reach -- never mind using consciousness to change genes, that is already out of the question, let alone being able to change time reversal; humans cannot do any of this.
He roughly describes the process:
The unwanted information must be erased, and it must be erased in what you call the past. (Session 705)
That is, the unwanted information in the cell must be erased, erased in what we call the past. For the cell there is no such thing as the past, but in what we call the past, at that time, it is erased. He tells you again why time reversal is involved -- from the human perspective, it seems as if time reversal is involved -- he must erase the genetic information in that cell in the past.
Some, but very few, spiritual healers -- psychic healers -- do this automatically, but they do not know what they are doing. Seth has made it very clear to you: it is erasing all your cellular memory, then replacing it with new information.
The body itself often does this on its own as well. Your body has this ability; it automatically corrects certain conditions, certain situations, even when those conditions are imprinted on the genes, it can still change them. This is remarkable. Those imprints then become reversed -- when it changes, from a certain angle is it not equivalent to reversal, to the turning back of time?
From the cellular standpoint, in your terms, they retreat into a probable series of events. From our angle, is it not returning to the probable reality of the state of all the cells in your body before you had cancer? And it does not actually affect you physically. We would feel that we have entered a parallel time-space, and the body in this time-space has not yet been affected, and that is what actually takes effect.
I have already explained this earlier. This thing is extremely contrary to our concepts, and it is even hard to understand. Try to understand it. It is a mechanism that operates both within time and outside of time at the same time.
注释与核实
-
The maximum diving depth of ordinary military submarines is generally around 300–600 meters; the deepest-diving military submarines can reach approximately 900–1,000 meters. ↩
-
The cellular autophagic mechanism was elucidated by Japanese scientist Yoshinori Ohsumi, who was awarded the 2016 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for this work. ↩
-
This refers to a 2018 study by Mark Stoeckle and David Thaler, which analyzed mitochondrial DNA barcodes from about 100,000 animal species and found that approximately 90% of extant animal species appear to have originated around the same time, roughly 100,000–200,000 years ago. ↩
-
This claim could not be verified. ↩