Probable Selves Show Up in Mainstream Science and Literature: Seth Explains, Part 1

One complaint that I’ve heard about the Seth material is that Seth’s claims about the nature of reality are too farfetched and the explanations too complicated. I don’t agree with the assessment that Seth’s ideas are implausible. However, a lot of the detail is difficult to grasp. It has taken me many years to get clear on some of the ideas, and each time I revisit the material, I seem to grasp a little bit more.

I’ve been aided along the way by other source material, most notably, from quantum physics, at least to the extent that I can understand it. The channeled material of Elias is also helpful in that he often elaborates on topics that Seth introduced but for which Seth didn’t give exhaustive detail. The Elias material is interesting because Elias doesn’t dictate books, like Seth did, but answers questions posed by people who attend the sessions. A lot of those people ask the same questions I would ask if I could. (Here is a link to the Elias Forum where you can search the transcripts by topic: http://www.eliasforum.org/

Occasionally, illumination will come unexpectedly, as recently happened when I read a popular novel. The book was the first novel of a young, British author, Laura Barnett, called The Versions of Us. I have no idea whether Ms. Barnett is familiar with the Seth material, but her book brought a particularly perplexing concept—probable selves—to life for me.

I won’t spoil the story for you, but it is safe to give you the basics. The story revolves around two main characters, Eva and Jim. They are Oxford University students who meet by “chance,” when they are 19. Barnett writes three different versions that all begin at this meeting point. From there, three “probable” versions of each of them spin off into different probable realities. The author follows the main characters throughout their entire lives, showing us how their choices affected them in each alternative timeline–an interesting, though not entirely original conceit.  More surprising, however, is the way Ms. Barnett includes incidents which suggest that these divergent timelines (or probable selves) continue to influence one another.  This is a concept I recognized from the Seth material, though I’d never seen it explored exactly this way in popular media.

So what are probable selves? Seth says that each probable self is a portion of your soul, which comprises many, many probable versions in our physical reality system, as well as many more versions in the reincarnational system. Every time we reach a choice-point, that is a moment where we are about to make a decision that will move our lives in a different direction–a probable self will spin off to follow “the path not taken.” In The Versions of Us, for example, Jim asks Eva out after they meet. In two of the versions she acquiesces, but in one she does not. This choice is significant because Eva is already in a relationship with someone else when she meets Jim, so going on a date with another man could initiate a meaningful change in her relationship.  Two probable realities are generated by her decision to date, or not to date, Jim.  Seth says, minor choices that don’t create major life changes do not cause a new probable self to form. Continue reading[..]

Seth Explains How and Why We All Elected Donald Trump for President

I have restrained myself from blogging too soon after the election because I wanted to make sure I was calm, clear-minded, and appropriately reflective before I did. The day after the election, I had to talk a few crying people off the ledge. And I was feeling kind of numb and shocked myself.

I have to say that my understanding of Seth’s philosophy has helped me tremendously. Not only does it explain the rise of Trump and Trumpism (see my earlier blog on Trumpism here http://sethsays.org/index.php/category/politics/), but it also outlines next steps that could help us mold a good probable outcome starting from where we are today.

As the exit polls revealed, everyone who voted for Trump did not necessarily like him, believe him, or endorse all of his ideas. Many people voted for him despite their misgivings.

Why? It seems clear that they were trying to make a statement about the “system,” which includes the government, corporate America, the “elites”, the media, and the “establishment,” in general. I made a list of the words that have been used to describe their emotional attitudes, which includes:

  • fear
  • anger
  • despair
  • hopelessness
  • disdain
  • revulsion

These people felt that the system was so broken, so stuck, and so irreparable that only someone as brash, outrageous, and iconoclastic as Trump would have the nerve and the audacity to knock it all down. As far as I can tell, electing Trump was equivalent to them  giving the whole world the finger.

Yes Trump’s campaign did indeed unleash some apparent racists, misogynists, and paranoids which we will have to deal with. But beyond that subset, whatever its size, I believe the majority were really saying that the status quo was no longer tolerable and they acted in the only way that they felt empowered to.

Now, before we move on to Seth’s comments, let’s take a quick look at the Clinton supporters. Again, the exit polls showed that there was still a great deal of reluctance in choosing Clinton because of personal distrust, wariness of her corporate connections and involvement with big money interests, and her overly political cautiousness in terms of policy. During the campaign we saw within the Democratic Party a similar populist uprising to the one on the Republican side, with many of the Bernie Sanders voters indicating that they also thought the system was broken.

Now that Trump has won, there have been protests, outcries, and all kinds of fears and worries expressed by the public, the mainstream media, and social media. I decided, once again, to make a list of the words that were being used to describe the emotional states of the distraught Clinton voters. My list included:

  • fear
  • sadness
  • despair
  • hopelessness
  • anger
  • disdain
  • revulsion

Isn’t it interesting that my two lists are almost identical?

Continue reading[..]

You Create Your Own Reality: Much More Than a Catchy Slogan–Part 1

If there is one thing that Seth/Jane Roberts is most famous for, it is coining the phrase”You create your own reality.” In dozens of variations and in hundreds of instances, Seth implores his readers to make this the number one take-away from his books.

You make your own reality. There is no other rule. (The Nature of Personal Reality, Amber-Allen, 1994/1974, Session 613, p. 14)

and

Your environment is the physical picture of your thoughts, emotions, and beliefs made visible . . . You are in physical existence to learn and understand that your energy, translated into feelings, thoughts and emotions, causes all experience. There are no exceptions. (The Nature of Personal Reality, Session 614, p. 22)

For a long time, very few people thought about the nature of reality in these terms. It is, however, not a new concept; it has for centuries been part of certain Western esoteric wisdom traditions, such as Hermeticism, Theosophy, and mystical sects of Christianity, Judaism, and other philosophies.

In modern times, this idea which was popularized by Seth and Jane Roberts has been reiterated and expanded upon by other entities and channelers, Such as Abraham/Esther Hicks and Elias/Mary Ennis, among others. Nowadays, quite a few physicists and other scientists are making a similar case based on quantum physics. (You can learn more here:  http://www.integralscience.org/materialism/materialism.html In the past few decades, many leaders in the New Age community began speaking about conscious reality-creation and a great many books and videos have been made on the subject, as well.

After the release of a 2006 documentary film called “The Secret,” the concept of creating your own reality seemed to explode into mainstream attention. It is no longer uncommon to hear people saying they are trying to “manifest” one thing or another or to learn that they have “vision boards” to help them attain their goals.

I thought the movie was good as an introduction, but was a bit superficial in terms of the rationale. Many people, I think, have come away with the idea that reality-creation works by force of will or just positive thinking. There might also be a misconception that this is something that applies only to specific goal achievement or projects. Seth makes clear that this is how everything is created. No aspect of reality is formed in any other way.

Although “positive thinking” and “prosperity thinking” have been around for a long time as methods for achieving success and happiness, they are not the same thing that Seth is talking about. That is not to say that both of these techniques won’t work–sometimes. I find that they can be very helpful; it’s just that, occasionally, what you think you want and who you really are conflict and this creates problems.

You will remember from previous posts that Seth says our particular reality is a result of action between Frameworks 1 and 2. To summarize, Framework 1 is the reality we perceive around us as the physical world. Framework 2 is hidden from our perception, but it is the source of everything and every event in Framework 1.

I personally think of the “power of positive thinking” as the ability to influence Framework 1 without any particular awareness of Framework 2. We may get what we set out to get by force, persuasion, charisma, sheer will power, and so forth. Much can be accomplished in this way. But there is something disjointed about this approach. There may be a split between the outer self and the inner self that interferes with reality creation as you desire. Even with the best of intentions, we often ignore buried feelings and repressed emotions. On the surface we think we know what we want; but underneath we are conflicted.

In my experience, if the goals you set are not aligned with your inner beliefs, values, and desires–either conscious or unconscious–you may still accomplish them temporarily, but ultimately the solution will not be stable. In addition, it will take a lot of energy to accomplish such goals.

If you would know yourself in deepest terms, you must start with your own feelings, emotions, desires, intents and impulses. Spiritual knowledge and psychic wisdom are the result of a sense of self-unity. (The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Amber-Allen, 1995/1981, Session 872, p. 296)

Have you ever wondered why it is that sometimes the things you are trying to do are so difficult, obstacles are thrown in your way, and your achievements are slow and brutally hard? At other times, things seem to happen almost magically; everything lines up just perfectly to make the way smooth and joyful. What’s the difference? When everything clicks into place smoothly, I believe that we are creating reality knowingly from Framework 2 and the universal energies are helping us.

This can sound very New-Agey and pie in the sky. But if you can suspend disbelief for a moment and think about it, you will likely be able to find examples in your own life that verify this claim. I know I can. For me, this happened many times during my business career, when the goals I set were at odds with the person I wanted to be on the inside. I found myself taking one step forward, then two steps back often enough. I urge you to think about your own situations.

Psychologists and athletes speak about “flow” as a state in which an individual easily excels to the best of his or her abilities, time seems to stand still, and he or she completes the task, with little conscious thought involved. Again, I believe this is because in those moments, the person’s outer goals and inner values and beliefs have lined up perfectly. You can learn more about flow from the psychologist who discovered and described the phenomenon here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzPky5Xe1-s

So, simply wishing, and visualizing, won’t necessarily make things happen–even with hard work. It’s ultimately about beliefs.

Continue reading[..]

Hate, Violence, and Evil: What’s Fear Got To Do With It? Part 2

In Part 1 we were reminded that Seth looks at evil as the result of blocked fulfillment. And we talked about how wrong-thinking was the root problem. Now, we are going to go a little deeper into Seth’s ideas about guilt and aggression. For misunderstanding about these two concepts is the primary cause of fear and ultimately evil actions.

First of all, Seth tells us that when we turned the corner evolutionarily, from being more like animals to becoming thinking human beings, we lost the natural sense of justice and integrity that operates in the animal kingdom. Basically, animals don’t kill or violate each other except for sustenance, to protect themselves or their young, or for other reasons that make sense if we don’t anthropomorphize them. And Seth says animals do not experience guilt.

A cat playfully killing a mouse and eating it is not evil. It suffers no guilt. On biological levels both animals understand. The consciousness of the mouse, under the innate knowledge of impending pain, leaves its body. The cat uses the warm flesh. The mouse itself has been hunter as well as prey, and both understand the terms in ways that are very difficult to explain. (The Nature of Personal Reality, p. 139)

Once we lost the animal sense of justice and courtesy, we acquired natural guilt as a way to substitute for this lost sense and to prevent violation. It is a tool for learning how to use our free will and consciousness wisely. The whole point of natural guilt is to make us feel bad about any violation, so that we will not do the same thing again.

Its original purpose was to enable you to empathize on an aware level with yourselves and other members of creaturehood, so that you could consciously control what was previously handled on a biological level alone. Guilt in that respect therefore has a strong natural basis, and when it is perverted, misused or misunderstood, it has the great terrifying energy of any runaway basic phenomenon. (The Nature of Personal Reality, p. 140)

The rule for living, according to Seth, should be: “Do not violate.” That means one should not violate any person, animal, or the environment. Ever. Although we could probably come up with dozens of times when we might feel justified in some sort of violation–say for self-defense or to prevent a catastrophe of a higher order,  Seth says this isn’t so. If you remember from our description of the nature of reality in Part 1, everything we experience has been pulled from the infinite probability field of Framework 2. If we were creating consciously at all times, we would not find ourselves in situations where we needed to defend ourselves in the first place.

Continue reading[..]