The "Introduction" and "Chapter Highlights" in 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 discusses how health-related beliefs are formed during childhood. Children are naturally loving toward the body, curious to explore it, and feel at one with life; illness is experienced as part of life experience. Well-intentioned mistakes by parents and doctors -- such as how discomfort is handled and the extra rewards given during sickness -- can teach children to use illness to obtain care or to escape. It is suggested that parents ask the reason for the sickness, keep life normal during the illness, reward recovery, and use imaginative games to help healing; the family's beliefs and suggestions about the body also affect the child's health.
Key Points of This Chapter
- Children are naturally born with love for and curiosity about the body, and illness is directly experienced as part of life experience.
- The reactions of parents and doctors to a child's discomfort shape the child's early beliefs about health and illness; giving extra rewards when sick teaches the child to use illness to gain benefits.
- Children often know clearly why they are sick, but they learn to hide it, eventually believing they are powerless over illness.
- Parents should ask children the reason for their illness, assure them they do not need to get love or escape through being sick, keep daily life normal during illness, give rewards upon recovery, and stand on the child's side in supporting genuine expression.
- The family's beliefs and suggestions about the body and health influence the child; imaginative play can help healing, and viewing illness as God's punishment is a harmful belief.
Main Text
Children and Health: The Formation of Early Beliefs
The title of Chapter 7 is "Childhood Situations Related to Health, and Suggestions for Parents." This chapter mainly discusses how these health-related beliefs are formed in childhood, what causes illness in childhood, and how parents should handle these issues.
This session begins on May 13, 1984. Seth said, we will begin Chapter 7, titled "Childhood Situations Related to Health, and Suggestions for Parents."
I wish you a pleasant afternoon.
Then came the dictation portion of the book. Seth said:
We will begin Chapter 7, titled "Childhood Situations Related to Health, and Suggestions for Parents."
After a brief pause, Seth said:
For adults, concepts of health and illness are closely connected with philosophical, religious, and social beliefs.
In other words, your concepts of health and illness are connected with your beliefs about philosophy, religion, and society. Living in this collective society, we are inevitably influenced, more or less, by this collective subconscious—though by now it is no longer the collective subconscious but the collective conscious mind. How you view religion, how you view philosophy, and your ideas about society all affect your concepts of health and illness. The beliefs you hold about every aspect of your life, down to the smallest details, actually have a certain positive or negative influence on your health.
He continued:
These concepts are even more entangled with scientific ideas, and with science's general view of life.
They are related not only to philosophy, religion, and society, but also to science.
Children, however, are far more innocent. They are not swayed by these influences, but are open and full of curiosity. They are also endowed with an almost astonishing resilience and vitality.
Children are not much influenced by the collective social consciousness of us adults, nor by science's views on life and health; in this area, they are less affected. So he says they have "astonishing resilience and vitality."
They possess an inborn love for the body and all its parts.
This is central—children possess an inborn love for their bodies and all parts of the body. This love is not like the kind adults often express after growing up: "I love my body, I love my legs, I love every part of my body." Children do not express it that way; children do not express it, but children truly love it. Many of us adults are willing to use oath-like language, or all sorts of ways, to express our love for the body, but sometimes that very expression actually shows that there is no longer love for the body, and language is needed to reinforce it. A child does not need this; it is innate.
They also feel an eager desire to learn about the sensations and abilities of their own physical bodies.
They have a desire to learn what their bodies can still feel, what their bodies can experience, and what kinds of tastes they can try. Children have a trait—they want to try everything, putting it in their mouths to test it. Of course, later, as adults stop them, they will try less and less, and may even develop picky eating or a preference for certain foods. But from the very beginning, children want to put everything in their mouths and taste everything, because for an infant or young child, the mouth is one of the main ways of knowing the world. At that stage they cannot go very far, or cannot even walk yet; the world and environment they can reach are very limited, and the mouth—eating, tasting, feeling—is one of their main functions. So they keep expanding and experimenting. We adults often cannot stand it and say, "Why does this child put everything in his mouth?" Yes, he does put everything in his mouth.
And they try everything they can learn.
They are exploring all parts of the body.
At the same time, young children especially still retain a sense of oneness with the universe and with all life.
They are naturally still preserving this sense of oneness with the universe and with all other life, and this feeling gradually diminishes by adulthood, but children keep and maintain it for a period of time.
Even when they begin, on a certain level, to separate themselves from the whole of life and go about the pleasant task.
When they do fun things or play games, they sometimes need to separate themselves from the whole of life. They distinguish "you are you, I am me"; they set up various roles and ways of playing in games, and they also separate themselves from nature in order to play and interact with nature.
When they separate themselves from all other individuals and set themselves apart, they still retain an inner understanding and the memory of having once experienced oneness with the whole of life.
As children grow, explore, and play, their sense of self has to emerge. Once the sense of self emerges, they are in fact separating from this wholeness, but separation does not mean they no longer have the memory of this wholeness. They still retain the overall memory of the oneness of all things and the oneness of all life, even though they are now in a state of separation. The separation referred to here is the awakening of self-consciousness—once self-consciousness awakens, they feel separated from the world, but their sense of oneness still exists, and the memory is preserved. This is why children are different from us adults in many ways. After we grow up, we gradually lose this experience and feeling, and even the memory disappears—the feeling of oneness with all things that we once had has long faded, or we have no memory of it at all.
At that level, even illness is directly recognized as part of life experience.
At which level? It is within this experience of oneness and wholeness. At this level, illness is also recognized as part of life experience.
No matter how unpleasant they may be.
No matter how unpleasant it is, it is still part of life experience; unpleasantness is also a part that needs to be experienced.
Even at a young age, children joyfully explore within themselves all possibilities of all possible sensations.
Pain and joy are the same to them; frustration and satisfaction are also the same. Their awareness is always driven by curiosity, wonder, and surprise. This is what children or young children often do—they do not feel there is much difference between pain and joy; they are just different experiences. For example, we often see children touch things they should not touch, such as a cup of hot water; some children even touch electrical plugs or sockets, or touch sharp objects and cut themselves, and so on. Sometimes they even fall down and try all kinds of bodily sensations and experiences. This is very normal. As parents, do not judge or scold them from an adult perspective.
What left a deep impression on me are examples many doctors have mentioned—many young boys in early childhood will play with their own genitals, and many little girls will put beads or small objects into their genitals. They are purely exploring, purely curious, purely investigating. So adults should not make a fuss over these matters. Just because it involves the genitals, we adults loudly scold and shout—but to the child, studying that part is the same as studying his hands and feet; there is no difference at all. Adults should not make a fuss either; they can simply tell him which things may be tried and which are unnecessary to try.
From their parents and from children's doctors, and through what those people do about their discomfort, they get their first concepts of health and illness.
That is, how their parents handle their attempts and experiences—for example, if they are injured, whether they are taken to a doctor for a tetanus shot or simply bandaged; if they have a fever, they are given an injection or medicine—the way parents and doctors handle their condition is actually their first concept of health and illness. They learn: "Oh, when I have this symptom, I have to receive this kind of treatment; when I am in this kind of situation, I need to be given an injection, I need to be bandaged."
In other words, sometimes a child's fear of illness is not as great as his fear of going to the hospital. A child's fear of seeing a doctor is often greater than his fear of the sensations in his own body. We adults are happy to see a doctor and say, "Please come and treat me quickly, give me some medicine, help me." Children are not like that. No child likes hospitals, and no child likes doctors. Because in their essential nature, injections, bandaging, and taking medicine do not feel good to them. This is how our children's first concepts of health and illness are obtained—from their parents' reactions and doctors' handling.
Moreover, we adults often reinforce this by saying to them: "If you get sick again, we will have to do such and such. If you don't eat properly, or if you don't dress warmly and catch a cold, we will take you to the doctor for an injection." We use this method to frighten children, trying to make them obedient.
Even before they can see, children are aware of what their parents expect of them in terms of health and illness. Thus early behavior patterns are formed, and they then react against them in adulthood.
They do not need to see to be able to perceive what their parents expect of them—what kind of state is expected of them, whether reward or punishment, whether encouragement and indulgence or beating, scolding, and restriction. In this way, the child's early patterns regarding health and illness are already formed. And once this pattern is formed, it is automatically carried with him and follows him throughout his life. Even when he later grows up and becomes an adult, these early-formed behavioral and reactive patterns regarding health and illness will still exist.
Parents' Well-Intentioned Mistakes
Seth says:
For now we will discuss children who enjoy generally good health, though they may have some ordinary childhood diseases.
We are now discussing ordinary children, that is, generally healthy children without serious illnesses, although they may have some "childhood diseases." Later we will discuss children with especially serious health conditions.
Many children acquire poor health habits through their parents' well-intentioned mistakes.
Remember -- parents' well-intentioned mistakes. The parents are not doing it on purpose, but it is indeed a mistake.
This is particularly true when the parents actually reward the child for being ill. In such instances, the sick child is indulged far more than usual, given special attention, treated to delicacies such as ice cream, excused from ordinary chores, and otherwise encouraged to regard the onset of an illness as a time of special care and reward.
This is what ordinary families do -- when a child is sick, they get to eat something good, homework can be skipped, studying can be put aside, the chores they normally do can be skipped, they can also play games, eat ice cream, and so on -- a whole series of rewards. But have parents ever thought about what they are doing? You are rewarding the child for being sick. When sick, the child receives so many privileges, but when healthy, they have to do many things -- attend class, study, do homework, do chores, cannot eat their favorite ice cream, cannot play their favorite games. So for a child, would they rather be sick or healthy? You are rewarding them for being sick.
But from the parents' well-intentioned perspective, a sick child should receive some special treatment. Yet this kind of good intention actually leads to the formation of a mistaken behavior pattern in early childhood.
I am not saying that sick children should not be treated affectionately, or given some special attention. But the child should be rewarded for recovery, and efforts should be made to keep the child's daily routine as normal as possible.
I am not saying that you should not give special care to a sick child, nor that you should not give special attention or love. Rather, I hope you will try to keep the sick child's life as normal as possible -- do what they normally do, still do chores, still go to school, still do homework. This is the correct way to treat the child. And when the child recovers, when they get well, you can take them out for good food, take them out to play, and celebrate. Celebrate what? Celebrate that they were able to recover and restore themselves. This kind of positive behavioral orientation will help the child form a very good early concept about illness and health. Conversely, parents form a very bad behavior pattern -- only by being sick can one be cared for, while being well brings no reward at all.
Children are often quite aware of the reasons for some of their illnesses, for they often learn from their parents that illness can be a method of achieving a desired result.
Their parents tell them that being sick brings many benefits, so the child learns: I can get these benefits through being sick. Yesterday during our live broadcast, many parents of children happened to raise this very issue -- many children can, time and again, make themselves run a fever or catch a cold precisely when they have an exam or when they do not want to go to school, and it works every single time. What is the underlying reason? It is because parents give special care when the child is sick, and this approach causes the child to make themselves sick again and again.
Parents often hide this behavior from themselves. They deliberately close their eyes to the reasons for their own illnesses, and the behavior becomes so habitual that they are no longer aware of their own intent.
Children know why they are sick -- they just do not want to go to school, they want to eat good food, they want to stay home and play games. It is the same for us adults when we get sick. For example, when faced with difficult work, problems we do not want to solve or cannot solve, or things we do not want to face, adults also choose to get sick. Another case is wanting extra attention and care from someone they like, wanting that person's company, and so they make themselves sick. Both adults and children are very clear about this, except that adults are unwilling to admit it. Adults hide the matter and say, "No, I got sick because I caught a chill, because I was infected by a virus, because I was too tired." They dare not admit why they got sick, nor dare they admit that they deliberately wanted to get sick. Children are not like that -- children know from an early age, and children understand this point very clearly in their hearts.
Children may be quite unaware of their own willing of an illness.
In order to avoid school, exams, or a family event they dread -- such as visiting a distant relative, which a child finds utterly boring and uninteresting -- one possibility is that they will make themselves sick so they cannot attend. As for avoiding exams and school, that is all too common.
They soon learn, however, that such awareness is unacceptable.
What does "awareness" mean here? It means being able to perceive that they are making themselves sick. They feel this should not be so. Because once parents see that the child got sick in order to escape these things, the parents will punish them severely. Parents believe that only naturally occurring illness should be cared for -- such as a fever, the flu, a viral infection, or an injury. If parents ever find out that the child got sick to avoid school, avoid exams, or avoid family group activities, then the parents will not only withhold rewards but will also punish the child. So children discover that they cannot do this, especially that they cannot let their parents know why they got sick, still less let their parents know that they made themselves sick, and that they can also make themselves well again right away -- this they absolutely must not let their parents know.
So they begin to hide it, to pretend ignorance: "I don't know why I got sick either. I really wasn't afraid of the exam, I really wasn't afraid of going to school, I really didn't get sick because I wanted to play games or stay home and eat good food." Instead, they quickly learn to tell themselves that they seemingly caught a germ or a virus for no reason at all, or that they caught a chill or a cold. The child begins to deceive themselves -- they clearly know why they got sick, but under this kind of parental coercion, this unspoken pressure, they have no choice but to deceive themselves by saying, "I don't know how I got sick either."
We had a case today, the one shared yesterday, about a child who often gets sick to avoid exams and studying. We pointed out that the child is indeed doing this. As a result, today the child used another method to prove that they were not -- they had already stayed home from school because of illness. In the past, whenever this happened, the illness would immediately get better, and they would be lively and energetic, able to eat, drink, play, and sleep. But this time it was different. Although they had already skipped school, although they were already at home playing games and enjoying the happy time of not going to school, they were still running a fever -- not very high, but still around 37.4 degrees. They actually wanted to show their parents: "I didn't get sick to avoid class. I am really sick. Don't say anymore that I got sick to avoid something." You see, they have already begun to use this method to perform again, to display again, to create their illness again -- they created a phenomenon of "I did not get sick because of this" to prove themselves. So you can see how widespread this phenomenon is.
Once this cognition is established, once they have persuaded themselves, once they themselves believe "I did not get sick because of this, I am really sick, I don't know why I got sick either, maybe it was a virus, maybe it was the recent flu" -- once they accept this kind of belief and cognition, they carry it into adulthood in exactly the same way. In adulthood they will accept this idea: I don't know why I got sick either. I got sick for no apparent reason. I didn't want to get sick either. I was passive. I actually wanted to work. I actually wanted to do things. I wasn't unwilling to face these things. But there was nothing I could do -- I really did get sick. But is that really the case?
Seth, starting from a child's growing experience and the establishment of behavior patterns, gradually unravels for us, layer by layer, how we form these very entrenched beliefs about health and illness -- namely, pretending we do not know why we got sick, and even fearing that we have this kind of awareness, the awareness of why we got sick, while telling ourselves that we do not have this ability.
Some people are simply too busy to ask children about their own illnesses.
We often give a child an aspirin to take, or when sending them to bed give them a bottle of ginger ale, or a coloring book -- a book to color in -- because that makes it easier to pass the time.
Such a procedure unfortunately deprives a child of important self-awareness and understanding.
The child originally had the opportunity to understand why they got sick, but this kind of simple handling -- merely giving rewards and comfort without asking the child about the cause of the illness -- actually loses an opportunity for the child's self-awareness.
They begin to feel that they are the victims of this or that disease.
Since they are completely unaware that they themselves initially caused the problem, they do not understand that they possess the power to change the situation. They begin gradually to lose their attention to the awareness that they caused the illness -- when they believe the illness was not caused by themselves, they also fail to recognize that they have the ability to make themselves instantly better. If the illness was caused by themselves, then they could certainly make themselves better; but if they do not believe this, if they believe it was caused by something else, by the disease, then they have no way to make themselves better on their own.
So this leads to the combined effect of parents and children -- under the multiple factors of the parents' good intentions and the parents' lack of time to care for the child attentively, the child ultimately comes to believe that they are powerless over illness.
If at the same time they are rewarded for such behavior, then of course the pressure is lessened.
Because being sick brings benefits, and it was not that they wanted to be sick -- they have no self-imposed pressure at all. If they made themselves sick, they would feel pressure; but like an innocent victim, like our adult view of illness -- "I too am an innocent victim" -- then this pressure is reduced, and at the same time they are rewarded, which makes it even easier.
An illness or a condition of poor health can therefore become a method of gaining care, favored status, and rewards.
So in the child's belief system, they will think that an illness or a state of poor health may actually bring extra care, a favored status, and rewards. At this point, they will begin to use illness as a method.
Advice for Parents
Parents who are aware of these facts can help their children at an early age simply by asking them the reason for their illness.
If parents discover these things, and are also aware of them, we only need to ask the child for the reason when he is sick, and tell him that he does not need to get what he wants through this method.
A mother can say, say to her feverish child: You do not have to have a fever in order to stay home from school, or as a way of getting love and care. Because I love you very much no matter what. And if you have problems at school, we can find ways to solve them together. So you do not have to make yourself sick in order to achieve these purposes.
In other words, if you really do not want to go to school, and you give a reasonable reason, I can also let you stay home; if you want extra care and love from your parents, then I want to tell you that you do not need to get it through being sick. You already have it in yourself.
Again, the reasons for such behavior are often quite clear in the child's mind.
Again, let me emphasize that children are very clear about why they get sick. So if parents begin this kind of questioning and reassurance when the child is young, then the child will learn that although illness can be used to obtain a desired result, there are better and healthier ways to achieve that purpose.
What methods? That is, to express oneself truthfully and correctly. But there is a precondition here: whether the parents stand on the child's side, or on the side of society and school. If you always stand on the side of school and society, and your views are consistent with those of school and society, then the child will not dare to express his true thoughts. If you always stand on the child's side, then the child will dare to bravely express his true thoughts, and will say to you: "Mom, I do not want to go to school today. I feel really awful. Today's exam, well, I did not prepare for it, and now it turns out the exam is today." All these things can have solutions, but the child dares to tell you the truth only if you stand on the child's side, and understand and accept him from the child's perspective.
Conversely, do not use grand principles or the mainstream views of school and society to suppress the child. Do not say things like "You can still take the exam even if you are not prepared." I just want to ask you: if you are an adult, and your company is going to hold an exam tomorrow to test whether you are qualified, whether you are suited for your position, and the result of this exam directly affects your salary, and for various reasons, housework, work, whatever the reasons, you simply had no time to prepare and review. Facing this exam that determines your income, would you not, just like a child, also worry, also feel afraid, also want to run away? You would also want to take the exam only after you are prepared. At that moment, if your child says to you: "It is fine, go ahead, Mom. You can still take the exam even if you are not prepared. It does not matter. Just treat it as practice and an attempt, and also as a kind of tempering for personal growth." Can you accept that? Do you not want to take the exam only when you are prepared?
Is the child's request wrong? The child wants to perform better, wants to perform more excellently. Should this idea not be encouraged? If at this moment you say to him again, "Then why did you not review properly? Why did you waste all your time playing games?" What use is it to say these things? He has already missed the time for review. He has already failed to review properly. He is already unprepared. If at this time you force him to take the exam, force him to humiliate himself, force the little bit of remaining desire to improve and to do well to shatter into pieces, so that in the end he has no choice but to give up on himself, believing that he is a child who does not study well, a child who only wants to play, a child who does not know how to manage and arrange his own time. Is that the result you want?
The child wants to do a little better on the exam, wants to be a little more prepared before taking it. Should this not be encouraged? He already knows he was wrong. He already knows he made a mistake. He already regrets it very much. That is why he would rather make himself sick than go take this exam. At this time, we parents should guide the child from a positive direction, rather than criticize him for not studying hard in the past.
Regarding the relationship between parents and children, and educating children, we could talk for three days and three nights, and we could give parents good advice on every specific case and every specific small matter, but that would be too detailed. Because I cannot be by your side to guide the relationship between you and your child. So I will give parents only one simplest, most universal, and most effective method, and I hope all parents will practice and carry it out unconditionally. This method is very simple, but very effective. If parents truly practice and carry it out, the child will definitely repay you in ways beyond your imagination.
Always Stand on Your Child's Side
This one is: unconditionally support and stand behind any of your child's ideas and decisions. We need to see the kind and positive parts behind his lying, we need to see the active and positive side in his skipping school, we need to see in his avoiding exams that he still has a heart that wants to do better, and we need to support, back, and shore up our child from those most basic levels. That is what a parent should do. You can learn the specific methods yourselves, but do not change this principle, and do not forget it -- always stand on your child's side.
Do not ask out of fear and worry: "Then what will happen to the child's studies? If my child just wants to play games, should I still encourage and support him?" This is the question many parents ask. First, support your child. You say, how can that be right? Isn't that indulging and spoiling the child? I did not say to indulge or spoil the child. You need to support your child, and you need to see the reasonableness of what he is asking for, and also see the legitimacy of what he is asking for.
Is playing games really so terribly wrong? Aren't we adults also playing games all the time? Do you think that because your adult games have money added to them -- something that seems real, whether a voucher or a gold coin -- your games are more real than your child's? Do you think that because you go to work every day, do projects, start businesses, and earn money to support your family, you are not playing a game? Isn't your whole life spent playing a game called "Monopoly"? Haven't you spent your whole life buying houses and land, investing to make money, and founding companies? Aren't you playing a game that is just slightly more complicated than your child's game?
There is nothing wrong with playing games in itself. You just think that playing games is not doing proper work, so why are you still playing games? Is what you are doing really proper work? Just because you can bring home a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of yuan every month, what you are doing is proper work? If our child played games every day and someone also paid him thirty thousand yuan a month, would what he is doing be proper work? We measure things by money, don't we? Because you worry that if your child plays games he will not be able to earn money or support himself in the future, you do not let him play. Because you go to work yourself, and even though you do not want to go, you still go, and you force yourself to go, because you can earn money back, you think what you are doing is proper work. You even suppress yourself and wrong yourself by doing the thing you least want to do, and instead you think you are doing the right thing, and instead you think your child is doing the wrong thing?
Your child is at least doing what he himself likes and what he is willing to do, and what about you? You bow and scrape for a meager salary, and you still want to pass this view on to your child? You have already knelt down for money in this life, you can no longer straighten your back, you have already been defeated by society and by this kind of reality, and you still want to pass this loser's mentality on to your child? You still cannot encourage your child to do what he himself wants to do and likes to do? Just because you earn money and your child does not, is that it?
Many people may not agree with my views and theories at all, and think that children should be disciplined, should be restrained, should walk the right path, study hard, and not play games. Then I want to tell you a fact: all the computer operating systems we use today, many of the core algorithms we use today -- the Android system we use today, and many other systems, including the Unix system still used on many mainframes even now -- do you know how the Unix system was developed? It was because of two programmers who wanted to develop a kind of space battle game1 -- two little airplanes flying around in the sky shooting at each other, very childish, in that era -- they wanted to develop a graphical game like that. But at the time there was nothing like it, so they wanted to see whether a computer could be used to design a game-playing scenario, so that two adult engineers and computer experts could play it.
As a result, in order to design this game and make it happen, they had to develop an operating system to operate the computer. In the end, the game was made, and the operating system was also written, and that operating system was the earliest Unix. Our later Linux, and many operating systems, all drew on a great deal of inspiration and invention from this earliest system. If it had not been for those two playful, game-loving programmers, Unix might never have come into being. I give this example to tell those parents that they really need to take a good look at their own behavior.
I only hope you will do one thing right, and that is, no matter what the circumstances, stand firmly on your own child's side, support him, encourage him, and tell him: no matter what, as your parents we love you and support you. Whether you want to go to school or not, whether you want to play games or not, whatever good things you want to eat, you do not need to use getting sick as a way to achieve it. You only need to express yourself truthfully, and we will discuss together how to solve the problem. Even more importantly, do not give him extra care and rewards when he is sick, and then force him to study, force him to do this, force him to do that when he is healthy. Think about it: what kind of behavior pattern will form in a young psyche? In the end it will lead him to believe that illness somehow just comes to him, and that he is powerless over it.
The Power of Suggestion and Family Beliefs
Let's stop sharing on this point for now, because this time we are mainly talking about health, not about the topic of parenting.
Unfortunately, some parents use the nature of suggestion in the worst possible way.
This is very unfortunate, so that a child is often told that he is frail and sickly. Because the parents say, "You were born with a poor constitution, you have been frail and sickly since you were little," or "You are naturally prone to allergies, prone to sensitivity" -- many children in Europe and America are especially sensitive, with allergic constitutions, sensitive to everything, allergic to everything. I hope you can understand that very often this is because the parents are suggesting it to him. Actually, sometimes his allergy is only a way to achieve some purpose, but the parents' excessive emphasis that "you are just prone to allergies, you are different from other children, you have an allergic constitution, you are allergic to this and that" -- well, from then on he really does become a child with an allergic constitution.
Many parents, because when they were little they used this to escape one thing or another, the child often got sick, and the adults never asked him the reason. The adults subjectively concluded, "My child is just frail and sickly, just weaker than other children," and told their own child that he was not as strong as other children.
If that kind of behavior continues, then the child will soon become so, will take this statement as true, and will begin to act on it.
He really does become frail and sickly, really does become a constitution prone to allergies.
Until they really become too real in the child's daily life.
Our parents got what they wished for; the child in their words really did become what they wished for. How many of our parents are unknowingly making such a serious mistake? You never even asked the child why he got sick, what the cause of the sickness was; you attributed it to your child being frail and sickly. Have you ever truly understood? Have you ever asked the child why he got sick?
The Family's Beliefs About the Body
Next session, May 14, 1984. Seth said:
We will continue with the dictation.
Every time Seth narrates, he goes through a very long pause process.
Of course, good health is closely connected with a family's beliefs about the body.
Good health requires that a family have a correct understanding of beliefs about health. If the family's beliefs about health are incorrect, then it is also relatively difficult for the person to attain a good state of health. We call this the influence of the family of origin.
If parents believe that the body is somehow a poorer instrument of the spirit, or if they view the body as unreliable, weak, or fragile, then the child will begin at an early age to think that good health is very rare and uncommon, and will learn to regard depression, lack of energy, and bodily illness and pain as a natural, normal condition of life.
If a family's overall understanding is that health is very rare, that most people will get sick, that the body is fragile, and that life is also fragile, with views such as "how can one not get sick when one eats the five grains," then this will lead the children in that family to also regard health as a rare and uncommon condition, and to regard illness and discomfort, bodily unease and pain as a normal phenomenon, just as their parents say. This belief is acquired from an early age, and it is very hard to change.
Conversely, if parents view the body as a healthy, reliable instrument of expression and feeling, then their children will regard their own bodies in the same way.
It is very important that both parents show an affectionate feeling toward each other and toward their children.
Here he states the core point: both parents must have very good feelings toward each other, and then they must also show very affectionate feelings toward their children. That is, parents must love their children, and they must love each other. This point is very important.
And therefore there is no need to gain attention through illness, or to use it as a method of testing the parents' love and devotion.
In this way, the child does not need to use illness as a method of winning the parents' attention, winning the parents' love, or testing whether the parents love them. There is no such necessity. Therefore, a happy, harmonious, and loving family is of tremendous help to a child's health.
Children have no natural reason to feel ashamed of any part of the body.
No part of the body should be discussed in a secretive, hushed tone. When we parents often talk about a child's genitals or sensitive parts of the body, we are ashamed to talk about them, or we tell the child in a very low voice, in a quiet manner, that this part is important and that they should not do such and such. There is absolutely no need for this; just talk about it openly and naturally. The more you talk about it in such an overly sensitive, cautious, secretive, and hushed way, the more it will produce a very bad influence on the child.
Instead, every child should be told that their body is a precious private possession. It is therefore easy to establish a satisfying sense of bodily privacy, without any hint of shame or guilt.
This is a belief that parents should give when children first receive early sex education. Your body is not only yours; the sexual organs or sensitive parts should be protected and respected, not because they are special, but because your entire body should be this precious and private. It is not only certain parts; your whole body is like this. And this educational concept can help the child form a relatively positive and satisfying sense of privacy: their body is private, rather than certain parts being private and other parts not mattering. Such education will not cause the child to develop a sense of shame and guilt about certain parts of the body, nor will it cause the child to develop shame and guilt because of the special feelings and sensations produced by certain parts. I hope everyone can truly and correctly study this passage, and give children correct guidance in their early sex education.
Parents should equally love the bodies of their boys and girls.
Boys and girls should be treated exactly the same, without any idea that one is inferior to the other, not saying that boys are inferior to girls or girls are inferior to boys.
Every child should be educated by their parents as early as possible, so that the child is repeatedly reminded of the body's natural resources and healing abilities.
Parents should educate their children from an early age that your body can heal itself, your body can restore itself, your body's abilities are so powerful, and that you can make yourself sick through a single thought, and you can also make yourself recover and restore through a change in a single thought. Parents should use this kind of educational concept to let them correctly recognize the power and wonder of their own bodies. And absolutely do not tell them, "You are still young, your body is very fragile, you get sick easily, you must take good care of yourself, you are more prone to illness than adults," and other such negative and incorrect beliefs.
Exercise and Fear
Parents who are really quite worried that their children are susceptible to illness often overzealously emphasize all kinds of exercise and exercise-related programs.
Some parents worry that their children are overly susceptible to a certain illness, so what do they do? In order to strengthen the body, they overzealously emphasize all kinds of exercise and exercise-related programs—only exercise can prevent illness. But the children sense this fear that the parents have not spoken aloud. The parents do not say it, but they are afraid of the body—afraid that the body might fall ill for no apparent reason, afraid that if the body does not exercise it cannot remain in an excellent state, afraid that the body is like a slave that needs to be pulled out every day for training and drilling, morning and evening drills, only then can your body remain in good condition; otherwise it cannot stay in good condition, and if left alone, it will keep degenerating and weakening.
Does your body not know what is best for itself? If running five kilometers every morning were best for your body, your body would naturally make you get up in the morning and run those five laps; if not, your body would not do so. Do you understand what I mean? Just as when you do not eat, your body will resist, will protest, will cry out, "I want to eat," forcing you to go find food and fill your stomach—that is what your health requires. But running five laps every morning is not what your health requires; it is what you think you require. At the bottom of it, it is not because you love running those five laps; it is because you are afraid that if you do not run them, your body is going downhill. At the bottom of it, you are afraid—you do not run because you love running; you run because you are afraid of getting sick. This underlying fear not only strips the benefits of running of any advantage, but on the contrary, this underlying fear makes those who run every day more likely to produce some illness they do not want. We often say: what you fear is what comes.
On the other hand, those who are too lazy to exercise, too lazy to run, will instead be healthier and live longer, because at the bottom of it they believe that even if they do nothing at all, their body is healthy and their state is the best. They think that sleeping in a little in the morning is better for the body than any kind of exercise. We should stop believing in those so-called scientific tests and comparisons—that people who exercise live longer than those who do not, that people who exercise are healthier than those who do not, and so on. Those are only meant for people who want to exercise. Not a single person who insists on exercising and loves sports regularly has ever lived past one hundred. Go interview those centenarians, those who live to 110 or 120—which one of them has exercised consistently since childhood? Stop being deceived and influenced by those so-called scientific fitness concepts.
If you truly love exercise, and when you exercise every cell in your body rejoices and your adrenaline surges, then go exercise—that is very, very good, because some people are born loving exercise; they do not exercise out of fear of being unhealthy. But how many people practice yoga, go for morning runs, go to the gym, because they are afraid they are not healthy, afraid their body cannot maintain good functioning?
The child then has to try to reassure the parents by achieving high goals or results in the target events of sports.
There is no area of thought or belief that does not in some way touch upon the subject of health.
Conversely, any thought or belief of ours touches upon topics related to health in some way. That is to say, although throughout this book we will discuss many concepts that at first seem unrelated to health, in fact they are all related to health—all of our beliefs, to a greater or lesser degree, are connected to the subject of our health, only some more and some less, some touching upon this aspect and some upon another.
Finally Seth added a reminder to Ruburt about his thoughts concerning the body, and their relationship to his sexuality and health. Some of this is quite unsuitable to discuss publicly, but Seth still did not forget to remind Ruburt that Jane's concepts and beliefs about sexuality also have a great deal to do with her health. In fact, Jane was someone who did not like her female body; she did not love her body, had little interest in sex, and even somewhat disliked the existence of such a characteristic as being female. And Seth told Rob to remind Jane that her negative beliefs about the body and sexuality also had an adverse effect on her health.
This will help him discover the reasons for his distrust of the body.
Why distrust the body? Because the matter of sexuality became one of the key links or a fuse. On this topic, nothing is elaborated here, and we will not elaborate either, because in the private sessions he discusses many related topics.
Therefore, when he has a correct understanding of this issue, he can begin to have a new feeling for the body's reliability, for the body's resourcefulness and powerful healing abilities.
He will then believe that his body is very reliable, resourceful, and very powerfully able to heal itself.
Seth said:
This afternoon I may or may not return, but again I do accelerate your own healing abilities, and quicken those coordinates of your own well-being and safety.
This is the content of the first part of Chapter 7 of The Way Toward Health.
Hello everyone, I am Mike. Today I will continue to share with you the second part of Chapter 7 of The Way Toward Health. This part begins with the session of May 15, 1984.
That day was a Tuesday, at 4:32 in the afternoon. Jane lay on her back, a little more comfortable, though not much more. She ate very little for both lunch and dinner, but read two sessions, and read them very well. I am seriously considering giving up answering most of the fan letters—they have increased considerably lately, and it is becoming harder and harder for me to find time to concentrate on the work of dream purification and value fulfillment. The ulcer on Jane's right knee showed clear signs of healing; the internal healing was much better than the callus on her left hand. Although it was not that hot outside, we still turned on the fan, and the windows were wide open. Jane's Seth voice was much louder than usual. Throughout the session I had the eye thing—those bright, jagged patterns moving across my field of vision. I described the effect and attached a sketch, which was later also placed into Jane's Adventures in Consciousness2, published in 1975. Today's episode was the first time in a long while—it had been a long time since these luminous things had appeared in my eyes. I believe it was caused by stress, but they did not last long. I did not take time to use the pendulum to learn more about the meaning of this light's appearance.
Then Seth came through. Seth said:
Now I bid you a good afternoon.
Then Seth said good afternoon. This passage was not book dictation; it had nothing to do with the book, but was related to the two of them personally.
He said that if Ruburt could discuss with you his distrust of the body, that would be of considerable help—genuine expression would be of considerable help, including expressing those feelings within the framework of your relationship. That is to say, if Jane could truthfully express the unpleasant feelings in her relationship with Rob, that would be very beneficial to her body's recovery. But Jane simply would not talk about these things. She clearly did not trust her body, but she did not mention it; she clearly had some uncomfortable feelings in her relationship with Rob, but she did not mention those either.
Seth said that those feelings should not be treated with disapproval—that is, the distrust of the body and the uncomfortable feelings in the relationship should not be met with disagreement and disapproval. Of course, because Ruburt indeed did not approve of such feelings, she often hid them. Expressing them in such a way might actually bring out Ruburt's tears, and perhaps make you weep as well. Although this kind of expression might make both Jane and Rob cry, such expression is good for them, because it is the most genuine expression. And in fact, Ruburt should treat those feelings sympathetically. Explain to them—explain to those feelings—where they came from. That is, let Jane face and sympathize with those feelings, rather than disapprove of them.
For example, her distrust of her body is a feeling, and also a belief. She should approve of this feeling—not approve that "distrusting her body" is right, but approve that "she can have this feeling"; she can have this matter of distrusting her body. She should sympathize with herself for having such feelings, rather than disapprove of, deny, or even refuse to accept them. Accepting that she has these feelings is the most important and most crucial step. Then she can explain to those feelings: where did you come from, why do you have such feelings. Including those unpleasant feelings in her relationship with Rob—she should face them and express them.
Seth said that this would allow some clear resolution of those emotions—let those emotions be expressed rather than suppressed. Through sympathetic communication and expression with these emotions, they can be resolved more easily and clearly. He might even treat those feelings of distrust as a beloved, frightened part of himself—that part he did not dare express, which in his mind he considered the part he did not dare express, the frightened, scared part. However, once again, speak sympathetically to that part of himself. Tell that part why he no longer needs to be afraid—he was frightened in the past, or was once afraid, but he does not need to be afraid anymore. Tell him why he does not need to be afraid anymore: because you have grown up, you are no longer that little girl from childhood. Those things that frightened you can no longer frighten you now. And in words and emotion, emphasize that the frightened part of himself no longer needs to be defensive.
Many people carry this childhood defense and distrust of the outside world all the way into adulthood, keeping it for a very, very long time, when it is already completely unnecessary. You can now fully open your heart; you are now indestructible; you now have a diamond body that nothing can harm; no one can hurt you anymore. You are no longer that fragile little child; you are no longer that childhood self. You do not need to wrap your body and mind tightly, not letting anyone in, using that method to protect yourself. You can generously invite all people to be guests in your heart, because you are no longer afraid of any harm. But many people do exactly the opposite—they carry the defense mechanisms that protected them in childhood all the way into adulthood for a very long time, not allowing themselves to express freely and naturally. What they did not dare express before, they can express now.
If these suggestions are put into action, their value is considerable. If Jane follows these methods, the effect will be considerable. He said:
Tell Ruburt that in our next session, I will begin the book dictation again, including more and more good related material. So, I wish you both a pleasant afternoon. And again, I accelerate your own healing abilities, and quicken your own sense of well-being and peace of mind. The suggestions I have given you are quite powerful.
He said, thank you. At 4:40, Jane said, "Oh, I'm so glad I did the dictation." While I was reading this session to her, I also laughed and smoked a cigarette. After the session began, Jane was immediately interrupted by the nurse who came to give him vitamin C. When recording that moment, I was very depressed—that some frightened part of Jane's own could exert such great power over the rest of her mental and physical personality. I was astonished that the frightened part had such great power, that it could cause such great harm to Jane's body and spirit. Yet I thought, perhaps I was not depressed at all; to those various psychotherapists, this kind of thing might be commonplace. Once again, the result was that I was dejected.
In fact, Rob was very dejected. He had not expected that a frightened childhood part of Jane could cause such great harm to her body and spirit. Jane sensed this, because she said, "I won't approve." He said he would not approve. I said that denying the existence of her symptoms was useless; I would not deny that your symptoms exist right now. And she replied that she had already felt the emotions connected with today's Seth session. She felt the emotion connected today—I think tomorrow we can do something about that matter.
Then we discovered that the optometrist Jim Beck came back after two o'clock, bringing two pairs of glasses previously made for Jane. That was our prime time for trying free association, yet Jane had to have her glasses. After the session, just as I was helping Jane lie on her side, our neighbor Joe Bumbalo—whose cancer was already very serious—called, inviting me to share Chinese food and rhubarb pie with him and his wife Margaret. I did not arrive at their house until 7:30, because I was trying to make Jane more comfortable. The food was very delicious, until while I was speaking, two pieces of meat got stuck in my throat. Joe was lying on the couch, saw me trying to swallow, and called Margaret out from the kitchen. I could still breathe, but with some difficulty, because the muscles in my throat kept trying to swallow the meat down. I knew this situation could become very serious, could even lead to suffocation and death. But none of us panicked. Margaret had been a school nurse, and she used the Heimlich maneuver3—that is, standing behind the patient, clasping both hands into fists, pressing firmly against the position under the patient's ribs, and thrusting upward with force. She wrapped her strong arms around me from behind and squeezed hard. On the third squeeze, part of the meat jumped out of my mouth, and I could speak hoarsely, while I felt the second piece of meat slowly moving down toward my diaphragm. To the Bumbalos' surprise, I was finally able to finish my meal. At that moment, I was ready to let Margaret use all necessary force, even to the point of cracking one or two of my ribs. Just as he had read in some records—there had been such cases, where in helping to save someone, the force was so great that it might even break the person's ribs, in order to produce enough impact to make the food shoot out of the person's throat.
That night as I lay in bed, I thought to myself: what would happen to Jane if I had not survived. This was a small accident, but one that could really have caused Rob to choke to death. So this little episode at the end of the session actually gave Rob a very deep reflection.
Alright, let me look at the next session, May 18, 1984, Friday, at 3:48 in the afternoon. Last night when I got home, I saw that the young man Frank Longwell had introduced me to for mowing the lawn had done his job, and the lawn looked wonderful. This afternoon he was coming back to sweep up the leaves. While I was there, Jane lay on her back, and she seemed a little more comfortable. After an ordinary lunch, she read two sessions by herself with her new reading glasses, reading very quickly. I told her I thought she could now read aloud faster than I could. The letters forwarded from the publisher had increased considerably; whether or not this was consistent with Seth's statement that the book's sales were increasing, a large batch of fan letters had poured in over the past three days. I had fallen far, far behind, and felt I could no longer answer all the letters. In fact, today was the first day in Room 330 that I did not answer reader mail. It gave me a magical sense of freedom, and the afternoon seemed to lengthen or grow longer. I believe I have reached the point of giving up the fan mail—or most of the fan mail. Perhaps I will take some time from the work on Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment to write one final reply, including Seth's, to send to those who write in. I can sign it, and that is all. He would attach Seth's reply to the readers, then write one standard reply, print it out, and for every reader letter, regardless of what their letter said, he would use this standard letter as a uniform response. Because he truly had no time or energy to answer reader letters one by one anymore.
The following material came from free association, following the suggestions Seth gave Jane in the private session of May 15—we were to discuss her distrust of the body and related topics. We tried yesterday, but Jim Beck's arrival with her new glasses interrupted it. The record is obviously simplified and shorter, because I could not record every word we said during that time. We wanted to connect with the emotions behind the words, most of which had been spoken at various different times.
Jane began by talking about her mother—how she told Jane during Jane's adolescence that Jane had her father Delmer's blood in her body, and that he had syphilis. Jane was terrified by her first speculation, and told a nun everything—that her father had syphilis. And perhaps that nun had her own troubles; Jane did not say, or perhaps did not remember. She also recounted how she did not have to take gym class because of her nearsightedness, and how Marie said Delmer had bad eyes because of the syphilis and could not read. Think about it—this belief still affects Jane even today. Jane would feel that her poor eyesight was caused by the poisonous virus in her father's blood.
Jane remembered all those feelings, but did not feel them—she remembered, but could no longer feel these feelings. She said she was very afraid of getting pregnant, and never fooled around. After we married, she was afraid of pregnancy, thinking it would ruin our careers—what a strange idea. I reminded her that when she did become pregnant, I was not too upset, but accepted it. She felt that 27 years ago, at the science fiction convention, men did not take her seriously because she was a woman; the same with the psychic material—a hysterical woman. She felt that men were superior to women—these were her underlying beliefs.
She identified with writing poetry very early on—she thought that what I wrote, but people said, one day I would lose interest and go have children. I made up my mind and said, no, I will keep writing poetry. Jane found it very difficult to share her things with most boyfriends; she found that playing dumb was smarter—the wisest approach was to play dumb, not to act as though she was very inspired and could write many things that ordinary people found hard to understand. Marie—her mother—actually encouraged her writing. Here the mother and daughter shared poetry with each other for almost several years. What is very strange is that her mother actually very much approved of the poetry she wrote. Jane was accustomed to writing poetry to win back Marie's favor, but at the same time I felt that doing so was selling myself out—on the one hand she wanted to please her mother, and on the other hand she felt that doing so was betraying herself. I do not remember Jane ever telling me this before, although she might have said it.
Several times she was very afraid she might be carrying my child. However, except for once in a passionate moment, she never had the impulse to have a child.
But I clearly felt that the negative part of you is the part you cannot trust—he said that this "negative" here should be a kind of translation, not quite reasonable; it should be "negative"—negative is negative, and also means feminine. He then said to Rob, you cannot trust your negative part. So as we talked about these things, she became more and more agitated and nervous, and wanted to smoke a cigarette. Therefore we were getting closer and closer to this buried emotion—this emotion had been buried by them for a long time, and now they were digging it up, and in the process of digging it up, Jane became more and more agitated and nervous.
I asked her about Seth—a man speaking through a woman. She said she suspected that as a woman, if he spoke like a man, he would have more authority. She herself was a woman, but if when she was transmitting the Seth material her voice sounded like a man, it would carry more authority. Because in Jane's perception, men were more superior and more authoritative. So that is why, when Jane transmitted the Seth material, her voice sounded like a man. When the Seth sessions began, she felt a kind of duplicity—why duplicity? Because she was clearly a woman, yet she was speaking in a man's tone. I do not remember this either. She became nervous again, her voice almost tearful. She recalled that Seth once said that if Seth had come through as a woman, Jane would not have accepted it. All this masculine business was connected to the priests of her childhood—because priests were male, and in her childhood priests represented authority, represented the Catholic Church.
Regarding the envelope experiments—that is, during the early sessions, they did a great many experiments with Seth. They put some content into envelopes and had Seth guess what was inside. This experiment lasted a long time, about a year. Seth had to be almost omnipresent and omnipotent, because she had transferred the authority of the church to Seth—she projected the authority of the church onto Seth, believing that Seth should be like God, omnipotent, and that he should know what was inside those envelopes.
One important point, and I think a new viewpoint—once again, Jane was nervous and agitated, almost in tears. But I said, the church would not approve of Seth. Then a thought flooded into her: she was starting a false church, indeed a heresy, with a false god, namely this Seth. They were doing free association—remember, Seth had them use free association to clear out the emotional and mental garbage they should have cleared long ago. Free association is a very good method—just follow the thoughts wherever they go, and no matter what comes to mind, let it go. At this point Rob suddenly had an insight—he suddenly realized that Jane seemed to be creating a new Catholic Church, a pirated Catholic Church, and in it there was a god, a false god, namely Seth, taking the place of God. He said Jane was projecting outward—the Catholic methods of confession and redemption had crept in again.
I added that since she wanted to use those abilities rather than deny them, as the church would have her do, she would continue her spiritual rebellion. She chose to continue her spiritual rebellion, and therefore had to pay through the symptoms, through physical redemption. Rob meant that since Jane wanted to use this psychic ability rather than deny it, just as the church wanted to deny her—she did not deny it; the church wanted to deny Jane, just as Jane wanted to deny her own psychic ability, in a similar way. But Jane did not deny her psychic ability. And at this time, although Jane was suppressed by the church, she was still spiritually rebellious. And transmitting the Seth material, in Jane's spiritual world, was like creating a false Catholic Church, with a false god, like Seth. She was engaged in a resolute spiritual confrontation with the Catholic Church, or betrayal, or rebellion. Through transmitting the Seth material, she made a kind of spiritual compensation or declaration: I will not yield to you; I will still use my own way and my own abilities to transmit the Seth material.
And this material was so incompatible with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, yet Jane from beginning to end believed that what Seth said was right. The significance of this matter does not lie in whether Seth was right or not; that is not the focus of our discussion. The focus of our discussion is to see Jane's own psychological changes—how she combined the matter of transmitting the Seth material with her physical symptoms. The point of connection is that Jane believed her spiritual rebellion should be punished physically in order to achieve balance. In other words, she did not consider her rebellion to be legitimate and reasonable; instead she judged herself, and even made an exchange with her body—saying, I can persist in my spiritual rebellion, but I must make a certain compensation in the physical body. And this point was discovered by Rob, not stated by Seth. This was a point Rob thought of during their free association process.
The creative part of her poetry had always wanted to go beyond where the church wanted her to go. I said, a just circle has no way out—the church was like a just circle, and Jane wanted to break through and go beyond the circle drawn by the church, but she never could. Jane said she might bite her nails—that is, a way of having no recourse; she was very uncomfortable, but had no tears. When she did not know what to do, she would bite her nails.
We talked a great deal about the priests in her life, and the conflicts between her work and the church they had established—the priests' church and Jane's work were in such conflict, as well as their personal behavior, good and bad. When Jane's poetry came into conflict with the church, or when Father Larkin burned her books, she did not remember her mother having any reaction. I thought this was very strange. In Jane's memory, this part was missing—by all reason, when a priest came to a little girl's house and, because she wrote poetry, burned all the books she was reading, and her mother approved of these poems, yet in Jane's memory it seemed as though nothing was done. Rob was skeptical about this point.
At 3:35, she again became tense and restless, and smoked another cigarette. She talked about how the previous session had completely put her together, as she described all those visits from Father Trenton. She talked about how, when she was only three or four years old, a priest put her to bed and how he "luckily" played with her -- "played" in quotation marks, meaning that there was actually a certain indecent element to it. And Mary finally figured it out -- I don't know what this sentence refers to. In other words, the implied meaning of this sentence is that between the priest and his mother Mary, there seemed to be something unspeakable going on. And while he and his mother were doing these unspeakable things, he also seemed to have put three- or four-year-old Jane on the bed to play along. He seemed to hint at it, but he did not say it outright. That is, previously her mother Mary had not agreed to do this, but that time her mother agreed, allowing the priest, during these secret rendezvous, to have her daughter, her three- or four-year-old daughter, placed nearby. This was the priest who called him when we were living together. It should be the priest who called Jane -- he did not make clear here who this "him" refers to. This priest was already old, living in a nursing home in southern Pennsylvania. I believe this is what he said.
Jane described how, when Father Trenton was angry at Mary, he would sit with his back to Mary; and how Father Larkin fawned over her. Jane grew up in a male-dominated world -- all priests, the Catholic Church was all priests. When Jane first met Father Larkin at the age of 13, Father Larkin said, you are just too forward. A good greeting -- a normal greeting, saying you're fine, was just too forward. And apparently Jane remembered another version. When we were talking, she only discovered today that the version was that Father Larkin told her, you are a good child until you turn 18, and then you will become a bitch. "Bitch" is obviously a curse word, expressing disrespect toward women, describing in the English language a woman's lewd and promiscuous behavior, called a bitch. He told Jane when she was very young, at 13, you are a good child, but only until 18; after 18 you will become a slut. This was Father Larkin, as she remembered.
In Florida, Jane several times thought I was going to leave her, but I did not. These were her memories about their relationship -- Jane seemed to feel as if she might lose Rob at any moment. When Jane's mother read cards or tea leaves to tell fortunes, Jane was very afraid. She remembered her mother making final predictions; for example, her mother had once predicted that Jane would get the same illness as her -- this kind of prediction terrified Jane. But I asked her, how many of these predictions her mother made were accurate, successfully predicted? She said, there were probably over a hundred predictions, but very few were accurate. Jane had absolutely no need to carry such heavy psychological pressure over her mother's predictions. And very unfortunately, Jane actually believed her mother's prediction, and now all her symptoms, she believed, were that prediction coming true.
All of the above was the free association content from May 17, 1984. Below is the session from May 18, 1984 -- the above was the previous day's association content, and below is the actual session. Seth said:
Once again, I wish you a good afternoon.
They said, good afternoon again. Below is the dictation for this book, which is related to the book's content. Seth said:
I have mentioned before that play is indispensable to a child's growth and development.
He has mentioned this countless times. Children learn through play and acting out -- children must learn through this. What does acting out mean? It means playing house, it means performing -- I'll be the dad, you be the mom; I'll be the nurse, you be the patient, all of this is acting out. They imagine themselves in all kinds of situations, all kinds of plots, all kinds of environments:
They see themselves in dangerous, embarrassing situations, and then magically figure out their own ways of escape. They first imagine in play that they are often caught or controlled, and then the content of their play is how to escape.
Many children play this kind of game -- catch and escape, catch and escape. They also try games related to family, such as imagining themselves rich or poor, imagining themselves old or young, imagining themselves male or female. They often do this kind of role-swapping and role-playing game, just like playing house -- in Taiwan it is called playing house wine.
When they see themselves acting powerfully in all kinds of situations, this allows children to have a feeling of freedom, independence, and power. Needless to say, physical play automatically helps develop the body and its capabilities.
That is, play can automatically help develop the body's growth, and also helps improve other psychological and spiritual abilities -- including imagination. For a child, play and work are often the same thing. Remember, for children, there is no distinction between work and play; play is work, and work is play. And parents can use imaginative play as a method to reinforce concepts of health and vitality -- through play, enhance the child's physical health, enhance the child's physical vitality, use this as a method.
How to do it? Seth said:
When a child is in a bad mood -- when a child is in a bad mood or irritable or restless, or has a headache, or has some other discomfort that does not seem too serious -- parents can use the following idea.
Remember, it must be discomfort that is not too serious. If it is serious discomfort, according to current medical views, you should still take him to the hospital. What he refers to here is discomfort that is not too serious, irritability, emotional unease, and so on. You can play the following game with the child:
First, have the child imagine that you are giving him a pill called "better and better." Tell the child to open his mouth, and you place the imaginary pill on his tongue, or tell the child to imagine picking up the pill himself and putting it in his mouth. Then give the child a glass of water to swallow the medicine down, or tell the child to get a glass of water himself and swallow the pill. Then have the child say aloud three times: "I have taken a better-and-better pill, so I myself will soon feel better and better."
You can play this kind of game with a child, and the earlier you start the better -- the younger the child, the better; when they are older it is not as easy. The younger the child, the more willing he is to play this game with you, and the better the effect. When the child is a bit older, you can explain -- for small children you don't need to explain, just tell him there is an imaginary pill, and he can take it; older children no longer believe in this imaginary pill, but you need to explain to them:
An imaginary pill is often just as useful as a real one, and may even be better -- if not better, it may even be better.
That is, although what you take is an imaginary pill, its effect is the same as a real pill, and may even be better than a real pill. Seth especially emphasized:
This does not mean that I am telling parents to replace real medicine with imaginary medicine. Although I repeat -- it is entirely possible that it is just as effective -- in your society, it is almost impossible to survive without medicine or medical science.
That is, if you should take medicine, still take medicine; if you should see a doctor, still see a doctor. Don't go telling others that I told you that you can take an imaginary pill and not take real medicine. But whether you believe it or not, their effects really are equally effective. Seth said:
Although I want to emphasize that point, I want to remind you that the natural and ideal body is quite capable of healing itself, and obviously has the ability to cure its own temporary headaches. At your present stage, you must replace it with an entirely different learning system before the body can demonstrate its true potential and healing ability.
Simply put, the body will heal itself; this ability is innate and inborn. Therefore, your temporary physical discomfort can be instantly healed through this method. But our cognition and what we have been taught since childhood are not like this -- we must learn systematically in order to heal ourselves, through professional medical study, learning these healing methods, these treatment methods, before we can be healed. In fact, all human diseases are self-healing; you don't need to learn these things and can still heal, just like taking this imaginary pill, that simple, no medical knowledge needed.
Of course, this point will certainly be criticized by those with traditional cognition. So here we state again, this is only the study of the Seth material, and does not constitute any advice for your child's health or your own health, nor does it replace the actions of a doctor. If a doctor prescribes medicine for you, you need to take the medicine according to the doctor's requirements; that is your action. If you choose not to take medicine because you studied the relevant material and content, that is your personal decision, and has nothing to do with the Seth material or any of our content. Seth also repeatedly emphasized that he is not saying you can skip taking medicine.
Seth said:
In other children's case histories, teach the child to play a healing game. In it, he playfully imagines himself playing outdoors in perfect health, or have the child imagine talking with a friend, describing the illness as already past. Even in nursing homes this game can be used, because it can revive spontaneous feelings and give the conscious mind a rest from worry.
Let the conscious mind relax, stop worrying, let him believe he is healing. You can play another healing game with the child -- when the child is uncomfortable, or already feeling very uncomfortable, have him imagine he is already well and playing outdoors. That is such a simple exercise -- imagine he is already well and can go outdoors to play, even though he cannot play yet and is still lying in bed; just this imagination alone is useful. Or have him imagine chatting with a good friend, and the content of the chat is "I was sick a couple of days ago, but now I am already better" -- just talk about how the illness is already over.
You say, can just this really be useful? Isn't this nonsense? This really is not nonsense. The famous psychologist Erickson4 -- who was Stephen Gilligan's teacher -- was completely paralyzed at a very young age. He used imagination, starting from imagining his toes -- imagining himself playing soccer, imagining himself able to walk and run -- starting from the tiniest bit of imagining movement at the very tip of his toes. Just like that, he eventually -- I don't remember whether it was eight months or over a year -- completely recovered, like a normal person, like a normal child, fully restored. His whole life he was amazed, not knowing how he recovered. He wrote all of this process in his books, and he also made these methods a primary approach in his psychological therapy, which he called hypnosis. You can call it hypnosis, you can call it whatever you like -- it is in your own imagination, imagining that your foot can already move, that your toes can also move; you must imagine the feeling of your toes moving, that sensation, that state of mind. Slowly, slowly, your foot will really move. If you don't believe it, you can look up the introduction to Erickson and the books he wrote himself; he wrote many books about hypnosis.
Seth said:
Many ancient and so-called primitive peoples used play in healing, all the same. And of course drama as well.
Look at these ancient peoples, or many tribes in rural areas today -- when those witch doctors heal people, the whole process is like a performance, a drama, a game -- one moment he takes some water and sprays it on your face, the next he pretends to pull a demon out of your body, then he does this, then he kills a chicken or slaughters a sheep, all kinds of performances and activities. Now you know why they do this -- for their healing value. They make people feel that these means are necessary, so that the healing will work. This kind of ritual makes the person being healed feel that this is a healing process, and through this healing process I am healed. And often their effectiveness is the same as the therapeutic effect of orthodox medicine. You say, is it effective? Of course it is effective. If it were not effective, it would have disappeared long ago. If this thing were completely useless, it could not have been passed down to the present -- it could not have been passed down for thousands of years and still be passed down. Why would something useless be passed down? People are not stupid; would they give them money to ask them to do useless things? It must be useful. We cannot say it is 100% useful, but it is useful most of the time. Yet medicine cannot explain this -- because he neither gave the patient medicine, nor performed surgery, nor gave the patient any treatment, so how did the patient get better? Modern medicine does not acknowledge this, but it cannot understand the result.
For example, when we use qigong to heal people, when our Chinese medicine uses bian stones to scrape back and forth on a person's body and can cure illness, or even through moxibustion, using a lit mugwort to smoke certain parts of the body and make a person better, not to mention miraculous acupuncture, where merely pricking the body with needles a few times makes a person well. All of this cannot be explained by modern medicine, but the evidence of the effects is right there, and they cannot deny it, though they will not exclude it from the mainstream medical system. And the actual effect, as Seth said, is equally effective.
Seth said:
If your child believes that a particular disease is caused by a virus, then suggest another game. In this game, the child imagines the virus as a small bug that he can triumphantly chase away with a broom, or sweep out the door. Once a child understands the idea, he will often make up his own games, which will prove most beneficial.
That is, once you explain this principle clearly, the child will make up his own games -- he will make up "there is a cannon in my body that will blast all these bugs away," "there is a general in my body that will kill all the bugs," and so on. What Seth is saying is that when the child grasps the spirit of this game and makes up his own game, it will be even more helpful for his body's healing, because a game he made up himself is one he will believe in more; while a game taught by adults always gives him a feeling of following a script. This is also an effective way to let children heal themselves through play and imagination.
Seth said:
Children are not taught such games, but are often taught to believe that any condition, any illness or danger will get worse, and that the least favorite rather than the most favorite solution will be found.
We do not teach children these good, positive methods of healing themselves through imagination; instead, we tell children that once you get sick, it will only get worse, and unless a doctor and hospital step in to save you, your illness will become more and more serious. So if you want treatment, you have to go to the hospital, and going to the hospital means injections, medicine, hospitalization, IV drips -- and all of this is what children dislike the most. Yet you tell him that he can only use the method he dislikes the most to heal himself. When clearly there is a method they like the most -- such as playing games -- but you do not teach this effective method to the child.
Seth said:
But through such mental games -- such mental games that emphasize the desired answer -- children can learn at an early age to use their imagination and mind in far more beneficial ways to heal themselves.
And in children this is very effective, very potent. You can try it; it costs nothing and carries no risk -- because when you try it on a child, it is not for a very serious illness or an emergency situation; as mentioned earlier, you must not use this method in emergency situations. It is under the premise that it is not urgent, but the child is indeed very uncomfortable and unwell, that you let the child try a way of healing himself through play. We can all try it on our own children and see whether it works.
Seth said, the boss asked for a brief rest, and we will continue. At 4:16, Jane smoked a cigarette; at 4:23, it continued.
Then Seth spoke again:
One of the worst concepts is the belief that illness is a punishment sent by God.
The worst thing is our belief that illness is a punishment from God. Unfortunately, such a belief is promoted by many religions. This worst result is precisely what many religions promote. For example, when a person gets sick, Buddhism as a whole will say this is your karma, this is your retribution, this is your cause and effect, this is the karma you created before. We now know this is one of the worst situations, yet many of our religions go around promoting and spreading this thing, passing the worst situation on to humanity. Besides Buddhism, other religions also talk about karma. Christianity is even harsher -- whether you are sick or not, you have original sin, which is even more severe than this. Buddhism at least says it is only when you are sick that it is because of karma and cause and effect; Christianity says, whether you have sin or not, whether you are sick or not, you have original sin; you came with sin. So we know that this method is the most terrifying. Therefore, you also know why many people who have practiced for a long time actually develop some illnesses, and their bodies are not as healthy as they imagine -- the reason is right here. Clearly these are simple, minor physical discomforts, yet they magnify them into so-called karma and cause and effect and retribution.
Seth said:
So children who want to be good children may unfortunately strive to achieve poor health, believing it is a sign of God's attention.
Some good children, in order to show they are good, get sick so that their parents will see that God actually pays attention to me! Whether punishment or approval, at least he paid attention to me. And if you are not sick, and you have not received God's approval, then God does not even pay attention to you. So this is such a subtle and ridiculous thing -- a small child, in order to gain his parents' approval, to make his parents believe he is noticed by God, even proves it through illness, as if God were punishing him -- being punished by God is often far better than being ignored by God.
Seth said:
Adults who hold such views often make their children live a life of turmoil and depression. In all kinds of illness, whenever possible, in whatever way, play should be cultivated.
Simply put, no matter what kind of illness, play can enhance its healing and recovery effect, and you should try it through play. Seth also said:
Many dictatorial religions sharply refuse -- many dictatorial religions sharply refuse -- to allow their believers to indulge in any kind of play, and displeasure is actually regarded as sin.
There are many religions that do not allow their followers to play any games -- remember, any games. Playing cards is not allowed, mahjong even less so, other entertainment activities are also not allowed, all game activities are not allowed; they regard play as sin. I don't know how these religions were formed, nor why they have such an interesting, narrow-minded, ridiculous belief, but such religions do exist.
Many parents do not believe in religion, but in their own households they are even stricter than a church. The whole house is cold and cheerless; laughter is not allowed, joking is not allowed, watching entertainment programs is not allowed. These parents consider all of that vulgar and lowbrow, and games are even less allowed. They still consider these things vulgar and lowbrow, and only permit the study of academic, scientific, high-minded, refined things. I am not being alarmist; many people's families are like this -- in an atmosphere of total seriousness and severity, children grow up in fear and trembling, never knowing what play is, never knowing what joking is, never knowing entertainment, never knowing that expressing oneself openly and cheerfully is allowed.
Seth said:
Card games or family games -- such as the Monopoly game the family plays together -- are actually excellent practice, and any form of play encourages spontaneity and promotes healing and peace.
There is a lot of interesting background about the Monopoly game; if you are interested, you can search for it. It was not originally like this -- not about plunder, not about possession; it originally had a strong spiritual character, emphasizing that people should give. But this game later changed, becoming the Monopoly game, and intellectual property rights were applied for. Let's not get into that for now. Seth said, no matter what game you play, the whole family playing together is a very good healing, and also brings family harmony and peace. Look at a family that is very happy and joyful; they often have a game the whole family can participate in -- even if it is karaoke singing competitions, the whole family playing mahjong together, or a cooking competition, or going out to play together, and so on; they often have game activities the whole family participates in together.
Then the dictation ended. The part about the book ended, and below is the part about Ruburt:
Some playful behavior on Ruburt's part would be of considerable benefit.
Seth said, Jane also needs to play some games:
If the two of you could indulge in some kind of game together, it would be even better.
He said, the two of you are frowning all day, thinking about how to make Jane better; you might as well play a game. If the two of you indulged in games every day, Jane might recover better. But you two don't play games; you are serious, either self-reflecting or self-examining -- why did Jane get this illness, repeatedly questioning, whipping yourselves, digging up years of old grievances, wanting to trace why Jane, from her early years -- from her adolescence, her childhood, even before she had memory -- digging it all up to explore why she got sick. You two might as well play a game properly. Laughing heartily in play is better than digging to the bottom to find the root cause of Jane's illness. Even if you dig it up, even if you find it, what help is it if you treat these causes, these early roots, with a frowning face? If you find it but cannot laugh it off, cannot look at it calmly like still water, cannot look at it peacefully and cheerfully, then what is the point of finding it? You two might as well go play a game.
Even if only mental games are involved, with no special purpose, games just for fun, that is fine.
Don't play games with any purpose -- I want to play games to improve intelligence, to improve something on paper, to improve our reaction ability, to enhance something -- no need. Games just need to be fun. Just fun is enough. Seth said:
For example, some version involving books or games related to French for the two of you, that would be fine. Once again, I have indeed accelerated those coordinates that aid the healing process, and I wish you a good afternoon.
Why mention French? He will explain below. Then Seth left again.
At 4:32, the wind picked up outside, it turned cold, and dark clouds gathered. Jane said, I'll tell you the truth, I am so uncomfortable that I thought I couldn't have the session -- she actually didn't even want to have the session. After Rob helped her turn over, she smoked a cigarette. We thought of things including French books, matters of French books, and even word puzzle games -- in English called puzzle, that is, crossword puzzles, word puzzles. By the window of room 330, among the trees just beginning to leaf out, I saw a very small yellow bird flitting through the trees. I pointed it out to Jane, but she could not see anything beyond a blur of color -- Jane's eyesight may not be very good. I thought I saw the same bird yesterday afternoon as well. Rob said he saw the same yellow bird on both afternoons.
The books mentioned here were Jane's French-English textbooks from her time at Skidmore College5 in Saratoga Springs, New York -- that is, French and English textbooks. A few years ago Jane began reviewing her knowledge of French, and I had asked her to teach me a little French. This was very interesting, but neither of us stuck with our idea, nor did we ask her to teach French. And here, Seth precisely mentioned that, for example, you could learn French together, the two of you learning a new language together, starting in the manner of play, which would actually be more conducive to Jane's physical recovery.
So in this session, Seth gives many examples of how children use imaginative games to heal themselves, and Seth once again emphasizes that play is so important throughout the process of our growth in life, even in your old age -- he mentions that old age is the same -- even during times when you are ill, these games are all so important. So parents who have listened to this session, will you still feel such deep aversion to letting your children play games? Shouldn't you parents instead learn to play some games yourselves? You can think about it with some reflection: just what kind of way should you play games with your children.
注释与核实
-
According to Mike's original words, "How was the Unix system developed? It was because two programmers wanted to develop a game similar to space combat"; upon verification, it should be "Unix originated as a system written by Ken Thompson alone to port his own Space Travel to an idle PDP-7 (Dennis Ritchie joined later), and that game was a simulation of piloting a spaceship through the solar system, landing on planets and moons, not a space combat game." (Source: Wikipedia "Space Travel (video game)", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Travel_(video_game)) ↩
-
Source: Jane Roberts, Adventures in Consciousness: An Introduction to Aspect Psychology (1975) (https://archive.org/details/adventuresincons00robe) ↩
-
This claim could not be verified. ↩
-
Source: Wikipedia "Milton H. Erickson" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_H._Erickson) ↩
-
Source: Skidmore College "Maps, Directions, and Tours" (https://www.skidmore.edu/maps-directions-tours/index.php) ↩