Seth – A Theory of Understanding

This following excerpt speaks volumes to me in terms of how I myself have come to perceive the world and my reality over the years. It supports my post yesterday when I summarised my beliefs “in a nutshell” in response to a debate that is still idling on, bizarrely enough. On my other blog I put it out there that I wanted to have a more challenging kind of conversation, well I got it well and truly. Archaeopteryx you are a truly tenacious and staggeringly bright man with bells and whistles on [I think he likes me… secretly… ]. It’s been a pleasure bending brain cells with you like Mr.Geller  bends spoons! This expresses what I refused to express during the original discussion because I wished to do so on my terms, despite objections and adverse remarks by parties involved.

The very attempt to describe reality in scientific terms, as they are currently understood, pays…undue tribute to a vocabulary that automatically scales down greater concepts to fit its rigors. In other words, such attempts further compound the problem of considering a seemingly objective universe, and describing it in an objective fashion.

The universe is – and you can pick your terms – a spiritual or mental or psychological manifestation, and not, in your usual vocabulary, an objective manifestation.

There is presently no science, religion, or psychology that comes close to even approaching a conceptual framework that could explain, or even indirectly describe, the dimensions of that kind of universe. It’s properties are psychological, following the logic of the psyche, and all of the physical properties that you understand are reflections of those deeper issues. Again, each atom and molecule – and any particle that you can imagine – posses, and would posses, a consciousness. Unless you accept that statement at least as a theory upon which to build, then much of my material would appear meaningless.

That statement, therefore, must be the basis for any new scientific theories that hope to accomplish any performances at all leading to an acquisition of knowledge.

Since I must use [an] objective vocabulary I am always seeking for analogies. By objective I refer to the use of language, the English language, that automatically sets up its own screens of perception – as of course any language must do to some extent.

The universe expands, as I have said before, as an idea expands; and as sentences are built upon words, in your terms, and paragraphs upon sentences, and as each retains its own logic and continuity and evidence within that framework, so do all the portions of the universe appear to you also with the same cohesiveness – meaning continuity and order. Any sentence is meaningful. It seems to fall in order by itself as you say it. Its order is obvious. That one sentence is meaningful because of its organization of letters, or if it is spoken, its organization of vowels and syllables. It makes sense however, not only because of the letters or vowels of syllables that are used within it, but because of all of the letters or vowels or syllables that it excludes.

The same applies to your universe. It has meaning, coherence and order not only because of those realities that are obvious to you, and that appear, but also because of those inner realities that are “unspoken”, or hidden. I am not speaking merely of hidden variables, in scientific terms, nor am I saying that the universe is an illusion, but a psychological reality in which “objectivity” is the result of psychological creativity.

It is not just that your view of reality is relative to your position within the universe, but that the universe itself is different according to your position within it, and that spiritual or psychological rules apply. The universe deals with different kinds of order, perceptions, and organizations, each dependent upon the others, yet each separate in its own domain.

In your realm of reality, there is no real freedom but the freedom of ideas, and there is no real bondage except for the bondage of ideas, for your ideas form your private and mass reality. You want to examine the universe from the outside, to examine your societies from the outside. You still think that the interior world is somehow symbolic and the exterior world is real – that wars, for example, are fought by themselves or with bombs. All of the time, psychological reality is the primary one, that forms all of your events.

It is not to say that you cannot understand the nature of the universe to some extent, but the answers lie in the natures of your own minds, in the processes of individual creativity, in studies that ask questions like: “Where did this thought come from? Where does it go? What effect does it have upon myself and others? How do I know how to dream, when I have never been taught to do so? How do I speak without understanding the mechanisms? Why do I feel that I have an eternal reality, when it is obvious that I was physically born and will physically die?”

Unscientific questions? I tell you that these are the most scientific of all. To some extent the attempt on the part of science to consider such material may possibly bring about those qualities of true scientific intuition that will help science bridge the gap between such divergent views  as its own and ours.

(Roberts.J, 1995, A Seth Book: The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Amber-Allen Publishing)

There is an incredible power inherent in language because of the intent placed within its use. The words we use to communicate with one another are not what leaves an impact, it is the intent with which they were expressed. The words carry that memory for as long as they exist, like an after-image from looking at a bright light. To me it does not matter if I cannot supply evidence or proof of what I believe to another, that is a prerequisite of a scientific method of inquiry that I do not, cannot subscribe to any longer. It simply no longer works for me. Although some may find that controversial, foolhardy perhaps, irrational, to them I would ask: “What will it take before you credit yourself with the emotional intelligence that you so richly deserve? When will you begin asking pertinent questions in order to get the answers that you really want? When will you begin taking responsibility for the thoughts that you have and the effects that they invariably have on others?”. You have nothing to lose in asking yourselves such questions, and if your answers do not satisfy you, then rephrase the question until something inside of you responds and you feel that spark of recognition flickering. It will come, I promise you.


10 thoughts on “Seth – A Theory of Understanding

  1. Intellect is least of the tools that can solve the riddle of the Big Picture which is a mixed bag of proven facts How of our universe and psychic responses of the individuals. Plants have a way and animals have another way of making sense of the world. We use our rational ability which itself depends on the unconscious part as well. We give reasons for impulses that have origin elsewhere. Our reptilian brain equipped to decipher primeval emotions must owe to our needs to possess and kill what is threat to reptiles existing millennia earlier and evolution and society have acted as a sort of moderating influence. Nevertheless these impulses exert on our actions and we rationalize it for doing according to our animal appetites. So brain as a tool is not perfect. What is evolution but making use of existing facilities-brain and nerve network that were good some 600 million ago. Nervous system of jellyfish( have no brains) and lizards (have brains)have been recombined and that was the human brain of ape-man. Prophets see visions and when it is put into words there is some loss in transposing vision into speech. Take Beauty for instance when I say she was beautiful for an Easterner it a rounded figure with hollow navel and many other attributes. Culturally a westerner has come look at beauty as seen from fashion plates. To sum our mind can only do the job as humans in the middle state. Truth as absolute can never be set down as one single entity so all may put to silence .
    Truth has no emotions. If truth require other attribute it is not perfect,absolute and God. It is it was and it will be al as one. There is no split either. As human being we can only accept as faillible,prone to errors but growing wiser in context of every other. The entire cosmos hangs on to something else.

  2. On reading again there is a crucial point I left out. Consciousness of plants to reach out for the sun, fire to go out when oxygen is absent. a virtual consciousness. It is not real but owing to our imperfect state admissible, waking consciousness in which we get tasks done through theday, at sleep during REM stage we move eyes. Why should we if we are asleep. Our physical eyes are useless isn’t it? We may theorize of a cosmic or universal consciousness that has memory from which we spin bizarre symbols in dream state?These are all admissible as theory but without producing a yardstick of Truth none of us may impose on another honestly speaking as true. Explaining channelling and word from God etc. How is one part. But Why is another thing. Only Truth can establish it beyond words feeling or any other medium. Truth must be self evident.
    I spent my lifetime thinking over it and knowing all these searching is wiith a caveat ‘doubt’ I would rather accept what my parents passed on to me as simple faith and way of living. In the absence of no testimony from Truth I rely on the continuity of faith practiced by my parents.The Bible may not make sense in many passages but there are many that make sense as a consoltion and as marker for my earthly passage. It is simply a trust ., So far I have not lost my way. There it is each find what is good and effective for himor her.

    1. I agree, we each find our own yardstick. For me I know and trust my own implicitly, and I have come to these conclusions through my own efforts, but that was part of my challenge this time around. I think of all the memories I have of lifetimes lived and I can say truly that I have lived fully and well, and I look forward to what may follow. Of course for me I am aware that it all exists simultaneously, even though years pass at this level of my awareness.
      I have memories of being a Christian priest in a past life, and I was extremely devout, it was who I was down to my very core. This time around I carry much of that conviction in my beliefs still, but without the trappings of institutionalised convention. I have greater freedom in many ways than I did then, in others not. Life however is about challenges and learning to be full of heart with every step.

      1. I too have a horror of institutionalized belief-systems. Why continue with way of life of parents? Being of middle state for me it is safer to go from the known to the unknown, testing validity of life with its many transient shadows where memory plays tricks or intimations etc., Earth as our nursery and life after life in other states. But one world at a time.It is essential

      2. Being aware of your focus in the moments I think is important too. I don’t think life is as linear as we would all like to believe. Certainly memories don’t follow such a rigid structure.

Don't forget to breathe...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s