Mike's commentary · Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Session 881

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

Introduction

This chapter is Seth's preface to Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment. He calls this book the most ambitious, as it seeks to explore the source of creativity. He points out that creative works already exist before they take form; creativity first forms belief systems; consciousness equals energy equals matter. He does not explain the origin of the universe from an external objective source, but says the universe dreams itself into existence, and that dreams are the inner order out of which the physical world emerges. Physical existence remains complete, effective, and majestic, and the universe is still being created at every moment.

Key Points of This Chapter

• Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment is Seth's most ambitious work, aimed at exploring the very source of creativity itself.
• Creativity first provides the power to form belief systems.
• Consciousness equals energy, and energy equals matter.
• The universe does not originate from an external, objectified source, but dreams itself into existence.
• Dreams are the inner order out of which the physical world emerges, and the universe is still being created in every moment.

Main Text

This session is the preface Seth wrote for his own book; the main text has not yet begun. The time is Tuesday, September 25, 1979, at 8:50 p.m.

Right at the start Rob said, today my wife was for the first time -- once again -- very relaxed. Because for Jane, being relaxed is a very good state, since her muscles would all tense up and her joints were stiff. In fact, she relaxed to the point of dozing off several times. Many meaningful muscular changes seemed to have taken place in her body; her muscles were loosening. At dinner I suggested that if she had a session tonight, Seth might comment on this current series of relaxed states she has been going through. At 8:30, she called me out, and I wrote down her own writing history. Because they had now moved to the hill house, and their house was more spacious. Now Jane was really somewhat nervous, because she felt Seth was preparing to dictate the preface to this book.

Then Seth came through. Seth said good evening, and Rob as usual said good evening, Seth, and he laughed, and then Seth said: Preface.

The Most Ambitious Book

He said it directly—this is the preface to the book:

This book is my most ambitious work to date.

These are Seth's original words. That is to say, this book is Seth's most ambitious work. Why is it the most ambitious? First, the difficulty involved is very high; second, the depth and breadth of the topics he discusses are both very great. He said:

Some might say that to write down any book originating from a psychological source requires ambition, because this source is so far from your general concepts of creativity. For example, it is one thing for a person with a physical body to produce a manuscript, and even that kind of creativity involves vast and hidden psychological operations that never appear on the manuscript.

What he means is, you are asking me to write a book, and this act of creation itself involves the essence of creativity. Because my writing a book is itself an act of creation, this involves creativity. But the book I am writing now is precisely about discussing where this source of creativity comes from.

Writing about the origin of a universe necessarily includes the origin of the human psyche, and it necessarily includes what creativity is all about, how creativity originated, and where creativity came from—that is, the question of the source of creativity. But my writing a book, as a person with a physical body, the act of writing itself is a creative process. You are asking me to use a creative process to describe the source of this creative essence. What Seth means is, "I simply cannot do it." Can you understand what he means? You are using one of his appearances—words are a form of expression of creativity—and you want to use this appearance to explain and interpret the source of this appearance, which is also the essence and origin of this appearance. The difficulty of this itself is extremely high.

He said:

As most of my readers know, I do not claim to be a person with a physical body at present. But I do claim that at another level of existence, I have an independent reality.

Seth says he does not claim to be a person with a physical body, but in another world, he has an independently existing reality. Now this reality—although Seth is speaking through Jane, the complete person that is Seth has not come over. Seth is still in his own reality; he has merely linked a portion of his consciousness with Jane's consciousness.

The source of my identity may seem strange, but only because you understand so little about your own origins that you find me strange.

Actually, you are the same. We humans also come from another reality, and our existence in this reality is not the complete, whole us. That is what he means.

The Nature of Creation: The Work Already Exists

He said tonight I am going to begin this book:

I have already given the title of this book, and the title is Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment. And Jane Roberts already perceived, twelve days ago, some of the topics that will be included in this book. But up to now, the only concrete thing is this -- Roberts, that is, Rob, has written down these pages.

Up to now the book does not yet exist. Although it already exists in Seth's mind, from the time it came up to now, there is only this little bit that Rob has written down. He said in terms of time, there is no such book yet, right? But one day, some day in the future, there will be a thick book.

Although this manuscript does not yet exist in the form of a concrete book, the book itself, the concept, and those words and phrases, in the most essential way -- that is, in the most important way -- are quite real right now.

The book has not yet been written, nor has it been published, and even this preface is not yet finished. But from some more important angle, this book has long since already existed.

In all kinds of creation, certain qualities are implied, but they are generally overlooked, and therefore they are not obvious.

That is, in all of our creations, it is the same issue. When you begin to create a work, whether it is a painting, a piece of music, or a sculpture, before you have made it, that thing is actually already there. Whether it is in the artist's mind, or in his heart, or in the melody echoing in his ears, no matter which way, that thing is already there, only it has not been clearly manifested. We humans do not understand certain qualities implied within this inner aspect of creation, so they are overlooked.

The creative process we are involved in can bring certain qualities into manifestation, and can illuminate many aspects of the human psyche that are usually hidden and not apparent.

This creative process we are now engaged in, that is, writing this book, this creative process can indeed bring certain qualities into manifestation. What qualities? It is the quality that before a thing has been created, that thing is already there. A painting in the end is only a form of expression; that painting is not the whole of the final creative work, still less its essence and its very self. Within the painting, beneath the painting, beyond the painting, the most important thing -- that thing behind the painting that it seeks to express -- that is the quality of creation that we ordinary people generally cannot know. Just like a piece of music, a song that moves you deeply, makes you sad, makes you happy -- the emotion that the song seeks to convey is its very self.

He said in writing this book, we are right now revealing this quality. The purpose of this book is to lay out before you on the table this thing that is present but not yet manifest, and to depict it for you in words.

Ruburt's Creative Abilities

He said:

I speak through Ruburt—if you prefer, you can also call him Jane Roberts—that is, I speak through him. Ruburt has his own creative abilities, Ruburt writes his own novels, and he also uses them very well.

Ruburt wrote The Oversoul Seven trilogy and those works—of course they were also inspired by Seth, but he wrote them very well, and that has nothing to do with Seth. And it was largely because of those abilities—Ruburt's own abilities—that our contact was able to happen, that it could happen in December 1963. What abilities were those? They were Ruburt's creative ability with words, his ability to express himself through words. You can get a glimpse of this from the poems he wrote earlier, the poems he wrote when he was young. His capacity to grasp and feel mysticism was very strong, so it was possible for him to reconnect with Seth.

Looking Outward at the Universe, Looking Inward at Time

Seth quotes scientists:

Scientists like to say that if you look outward at the universe, you are looking inward at time.

I don't know how you understand this statement. Why is it said that looking outward at the universe is equivalent to looking inward at time? Let me give an example. Suppose you are standing on Earth, and you go outward to explore the universe. Now suppose you have a spaceship whose speed can exceed the speed of light. When this spaceship leaves Earth, at first it flies at 0.1 times the speed of light, 0.2 times the speed of light — that is, it starts flying at one-tenth, two-tenths of the speed of light. At that time, time is flowing normally, right? The speed of light is 300,000 kilometers per second¹. If you are flying at one-tenth the speed of light, that is 30,000 kilometers per second, so what you pass through is a normally flowing time.

Okay, so suppose this spaceship flies out of the atmosphere and reaches outer space, and then it flies at ten times the speed of light. It suddenly accelerates, just like when our car gets on the highway from the parking lot and we step on the gas. If you have studied relativity, you will know what problem occurs: when it flies at ten times the speed of light, time will flow backward. He cannot say in the ordinary way that "the farther he flies, the older he gets" — that is not how it is. For him, time is flowing backward.

If he travels in a circle at faster-than-light speed and returns to Earth, suppose humanity has mastered this technology. In 2025 he flies out, to a planet ten light-years away. At ten times the speed of light, ten light-years takes him only one Earth year to reach, and the return takes another year, so going and coming back takes two years. We would normally think that if he takes off in 2025, he should return in 2027. But the amazing thing is, he comes back in 2023 — before he has even taken off, he has already returned. You say, how is that possible? You say, I can't understand this; saying this makes me a bit dazed, my head is about to explode.

Yes, if humanity cannot currently surpass the speed of light, you will feel that this thing will never happen. But what we are assuming now is that after humanity has mastered the method of surpassing the speed of light, this is the fact. If you don't understand, then go carefully read Einstein's theory of relativity, and look at the theory of the unity of space and time. Time and space are one; time will distort along with this change. Einstein's theory of relativity holds that the speed of light cannot be surpassed, but he also gave what would happen if it were surpassed — through mathematical calculation he could deduce that time would flow backward.

So when you look outward at the universe, when you are exploring the universe, the stars you see and their light — aren't they all from a very, very long time ago — hundreds of light-years, thousands of light-years, even tens of thousands of light-years away. You cannot see "now"; what you see is the ancient past.

Then you ask, is that star still in the sky now? How do I answer you? You ask whether it is there or not? It was there tens of thousands of years ago — now it may have already undergone a supernova explosion and no longer exists. But that thing which "no longer exists" can only be seen by you later. What you see now is the light emitted by that star tens of thousands of years ago that has only now reached Earth. So when you ask me now whether that star is in the sky, how do I answer you? For you, it is there. But from the scientist's point of view, that can only prove that it was there tens of thousands of years ago, depending on how far it is from Earth.

So when you observe this universe, explore outward, and look at this vast universe, what are you looking at? You are looking at the past of time — things that happened thousands of years ago, tens of thousands of years ago, hundreds of millions of years ago, billions of years ago. What you are seeing is not what is happening now. This is not mysticism; this is not related to mind-body-spirit or the New Age. This is science; all theories will tell you this.

You think what you are seeing is the present, but actually what you are seeing is the ancient past. So Seth used this sentence: he said that when you look at the universe, you are, so to speak, looking inward at time. He did not use "looking backward"; he used "looking inward," and this word again contains hidden meaning. What is the difference between backward and inward? Inward means that time, in this present moment, is something from tens of thousands of years ago, hundreds of millions of years ago, but what you are feeling now is the present.

It is like looking at a basin of water, looking at a seabed, looking at a water tank — you look down and see that coin at the bottom of the tank, at the bottom of the pool, glimmering. That is the meaning. That coin — you see that light as if it is on the surface of the water, or in your eyes, but actually where is that coin? Under the water. Your present is someone else's past, and someone else's past exists within your present. The only way you can feel is to use your present to feel someone else's past; this is the only way you are capable of feeling. It is like saying that others live within your present — for you it is the present, and for others, they are living inside you, living within this point of your moment. This point of yours already includes millions and millions of years. You can only explain this with this kind of literary, this kind of language; it is very hard to articulate it clearly using mathematical or scientific methods.

So he did not use "looking backward at time"; he used "looking inward at time," because this involves the non-synchronization of your time and his time — because of the relationship between distance and space, time becomes non-synchronized. And time and space themselves are one thing, are a unity.

What does "unity" mean? Didn't I just tell you? You make a faster-than-light spaceship, set out from Earth, and you make a journey in distance, in space — you fly out beyond a hundred thousand light-years and fly back. As a result, you fly at faster-than-light speed, still traveling in space, but what is the result given to you? It is that time flows backward. So this is the reason why space and time are said to be one.

Now, what human science can verify — Einstein's theory of the unity of space and time within the speed of light — is absolutely true. What lies beyond the speed of light cannot be verified by humanity; it can only be scientifically inferred, and cannot be observed experimentally. But according to scientific theory, according to the experimental results observed within the speed of light, if you extrapolate, the result will definitely be that result.

He says:

However, when you flow inward through your psyche, in your terms, you do indeed begin to move inward toward the source of existence.

He says Einstein's statement is only partially true. Why is it only partially true? Because science has now proven that Einstein's theory of relativity is incorrect in the face of quantum mechanics. We have said this many times, so I won't elaborate. You understand that Einstein's theory of relativity, from a certain angle — from the macroscopic angle — has its correctness, but when it comes to probing the essence of the universe, it is no longer correct.

This universe is not linear the way Einstein thought. The biggest difference is quantum mechanics. What is the concept of "quantum"? Quantum means one portion at a time. Traditional physics, including Einstein and Newton, all believed that no matter how large or small this universe is, it must be continuous and divisible — large things become small things, small things divide into even smaller things, and you can keep dividing infinitely smaller. But quantum mechanics tells you that the most basic units of this world come one portion at a time. The smallest unit of length is called the Planck length, and the smallest unit of time is called Planck time. At this scale, it can no longer be divided; everything operates in such portions of time and portions of energy or particles, which is why it is called quantum. It is countable, whereas tradition held that it could not be counted — infinitely small, infinitesimally small, always infinite. Quantum mechanics tells him that is not so: after 34 to 35 zeros behind the decimal point, it cannot get any smaller².

So Seth reminds us: he says although this thing is very romantic — exploring the universe outward is looking inward at time — do not think this is correct; it is only partially correct. He says although it is partially correct, when you move inward through your psyche, in our human terms, you do indeed begin to move inward toward the source of existence. To explain in plain language: only when you explore inward can you explore the source of the origin of this universe. The source of existence is the source of the universe, right? Where does the source of your universe exist? It exists within your psyche.

But there is one thing here — this "within" is not like the within of space as you imagine it. So he put quotation marks around this "inward"; it is not what you think of as somewhere in your heart, or somewhere in your brain, or somewhere in your body — that if you explore inward, inward, inward, there will be some thing or another. This "psyche" is also not the heart that we are familiar with.

He is afraid you will misunderstand, so he says: the meaning of "inward" is not the directional inwardness you understand — because as soon as you speak of direction, it becomes a question of space. Only space has inward and outward; he does not have this distinction of inner and outer. Language becomes impoverished at this point. What he means is: when I now say "inward," you must absolutely not understand it as a direction pointing inward. No. Inward means being together with your heart. In a certain sense it is indeed exploring inward, but it is also not the "inward" that you understand.

Creativity and Belief Systems

He said:

Your creativity does not only allow you to paint, to speak, to write stories, or to create sculptures, to build. They not only provide a foundation for your religions, sciences, and civilizations, but are also your connection with the source of existence itself.

Creation or creative work does not necessarily have to be expressed in a physical form. It is not that you must paint a picture, must write a poem, must sing a song, must write a book, or make a sculpture, or put up a building, and only then is it called creation. What is the essence of creation? The essence of creation is that because you are connected with the source of this world, with the source of this universe, you have a connection with this source itself. Creativity is an attribute of this universe itself. The fact that you create this and create that here today is not because of you; it is because this universe itself is inherently creative. As a part of the universe, you are born with this attribute.

It is not only those artists who can create; it is not that only they can create this or that thing. Everyone is creating. The way of creating—you are creating in every minute and every second, in every present moment of your life. You do not necessarily have to produce some work of art or write something out.

In other words, when you are together with your heart, it will create automatically; it cannot help but create. Do not ask, "How do I create, how do I do it, what should I do, what kind of work should I take up, what kind of thing should I do"—you do not need to ask any of these. The fact that you ask means you are not yet together with your heart. When you are truly together with your heart, these questions do not exist. Only when one is not together with one's own heart does one ask these questions: Who am I, where do I come from, what should I do. When you are together with your heart, that means when you are together with the source of the universe, your creative essence wells up naturally, spontaneously, automatically, with an irrepressible creativity.

Seth paused for a long time after that, and then said:

Your creative ability, first of all, provides the power that allows you to form a belief system.

That is to say, creativity—never mind creating a painting or creating anything else for now—what does your creativity create first of all? It creates your belief system. Seth says beliefs create reality, right? Then where do beliefs come from? Who created beliefs? Here it tells you: your creative ability itself, first of all, allows you to have the power to create your own belief system.

All right, then he paused again, because at this point he did not know how to say it:

When you believe that consciousness somehow emerged from dead animals, from dead matter, then you will never understand yourself.

What he means is, when you are a materialist, you believe that human beings evolved step by step from nature up to the present, and only then did consciousness arise in human beings; you believe that consciousness was born from matter. If that is what you think, then you will never understand what you yourself are.

You will forever be searching for the point at which life took on physical form.

You will always be looking for the point at which this physical body came to have life. Is it the point when the mother becomes pregnant? Is it the point when the egg and the sperm unite? Or is it the point in time when the fetus is born from the mother's womb? Which point exactly is it that life came into being? Scientists to this day each say different things. Some say that once fertilization occurs there is life; others say no, and so on, with all kinds of different claims.

You must always wonder about a mechanical birth of the universe.

If you are a materialist, you will necessarily look at this process of birth from a mechanical angle—who created it? Through what mechanism was it produced? In the materialist's mind, the birth of this universe must be some kind of mechanism. For example, the Big Bang theory—the universe came out with a bang. It keeps thinking about how the universe came to be, and in all of its imaginings, every kind of imagining is a birth that happened in a mechanical way. What is a mechanical way? It is a birth that conforms to Newton's laws, that conforms to Einstein's theory of relativity. If you tell them that "the earth has many versions," that "quantum states exist," that "all possibilities exist," these materialists cannot understand it.

He said:

And your world, indeed, does seem as though it were made of many spare parts. They somehow happened to fall together in just such a way that life subsequently appeared.

From the materialist point of view, it does seem to be like that.

The Weakest Link in the Theory of Evolution

Seth says your hearts are full of questions. Questions about what?

When and where did the various species appear? When did those fish emerge from the ocean and learn to breathe air? And you must also wonder, what happened in the time between the two?

According to the theory of evolution, humans came from the ocean, evolving step by step from single-celled organisms to ocean life, then to reptiles, to vertebrates, then all the way to mammals. So Seth asks a very core question: before this fish came ashore, what happened? When exactly did the fish decide to come ashore?

Suppose there is such a fish, which according to the theory of evolution evolved from the sea to the land. Then I would like to ask you -- Seth's point -- in which year, on which day of human history, did the fish crawl onto the shore? His point is not about a specific day; what he is asking is: when this fish crawled up, was it breathing with lungs, or was it breathing with gills?

It used to be a fish, swimming in the sea, and then one day it suddenly came ashore. The theory of evolution says it evolved gradually. Fine, so if it evolved gradually, how did it come up? When it came up, did it have lungs, or did it have gills? Or half lungs and half gills? Or both lungs and gills? Or lungs that could also breathe in water? Or gills that could also work on land? That is the point.

Seth keeps looking for the weakest link in the theory of evolution. This is indeed the weakest link in the theory of evolution. According to the theory of evolution, humans evolved from the ocean, so there should have been a massive process spanning no short period of time, for fish to gradually move from the sea onto land and become reptiles. Yet to this day, humanity has not discovered a single animal that has both lungs and gills, nor has it discovered an animal that can breathe in water -- not like whales and dolphins, because those are mammals that have to surface to breathe, but they do not count as fish. There is simply no animal with both gills and lungs.

So what is going on here? Seth seizes on this point and does not let go. And it is not just Seth -- this is the place where all scientists attack the theory of evolution the most, because it defies common sense. In the world, it is not just about fish turning into something else; the intermediate-stage species between one species and another have never been found.

Logically speaking, with so many species, from single-celled to multi-celled, from ocean to land, over such a long evolutionary process, why are there no intermediate forms? You have excavated so many fossils, so why are there no fossils of these intermediate species? Should there not be an intermediate state? It could just come onto land all at once? Yesterday it was still breathing in the sea, and today it is breathing on land? So on which day did it begin?

Seth points straight at this vital spot. He says:

For example, how many reptiles tried to grow wings and failed, or could not fly? Or before the first victorious bird flew above the landscape of the earth, how many times did millions of reptiles try?

What he is asking is the same thing: how come there are no intermediate ones?

How many fish formed only half a set of lungs and then died? Are lungs the only way to breathe on land? How many fish had half lungs and half gills, but then died, simply because they were too far from the water's edge to dive back under?

Even more fervently, Seth says:

Or how many fish flapped their fins and retreated back into the water, finding themselves in such a transitional stage that they could no longer live in the water?

Fins are the things fish use to swim and glide, and they eventually become the limbs of land animals. He says how many fish thought of coming onto land from the bottom of the sea -- but to get onto land, they had to evolve lungs, and lungs always have a process of evolving from no lungs to lungs. Suppose it evolved half a lung -- no, there is no such animal, no such fossil.

All right, so suppose this fish reached land and found it could breathe, but not well -- having only half a lung is not good -- so it wanted to go back. At that point it used its fins, slapping the ground to retreat backward. The fins were like feet. Could it still return to the sea? It had lung problems -- could it breathe in the sea? No. Could it breathe on land? Apparently not either -- the lungs were not strong enough, only half there. So Seth uses several very interesting rhetorical questions.

Before the first mammal stood safely with complete lungs, breathing the earliest air of the earth, how many water-dwelling animals died?

If they all died, and such a massive number of animals died before evolving complete lung function, then why have we not seen their fossils?

Consciousness Is Energy

Seth went on to say:

Scientists now say that energy and matter are one, that they are a single thing, and that they can only follow the law of conservation.

Humanity now realizes that energy and matter are one, which was not understood before. Only after Einstein gave us his mass-energy equation did humanity realize that matter and energy are actually the same thing, that the two can transform into each other, and that matter is simply a different form in which energy expresses itself. Ultimately, it is all energy.

So the coal you burn can generate electricity, and the gasoline you burn can make a car run, providing you with energy and giving you power. That part is easy for us to understand.

Seth said that the next step humanity must recognize is this:

Consciousness also equals energy, and energy also equals consciousness.

Because energy equals matter, consciousness equals energy equals matter. When humanity can clearly recognize this equation, only then can human civilization and science move to the next step. If humanity refuses to acknowledge this, then you will just keep spinning in circles within technology 1.0.

The Origin of the Universe: Another Perspective

Then Seth continued, after a pause:

In this book, then, we will look at the origin of the universe from another viewpoint.

What does "another viewpoint" mean? It means not using the scientists' viewpoint, not using these materialist viewpoints, because they fundamentally cannot see clearly. Seth says, let me offer you a new perspective, let me tell you how the universe originated. He says this origin of the universe must certainly include the origin of species, as well as the origin of life -- all of that is included.

I hope that this viewpoint will provide a framework, an entirely different framework. Through this new framework, you will be able to understand and study physical reality, as well as your own role within it, and to feel the vast, creative intricacy that connects each individual with the source of consciousness itself.

Seth says, I am giving you another way of looking at the world. With it, you can not only understand what physical reality is all about, but also understand that inner role you have within physical reality -- the inner part is our inner self, our soul, our spiritual part, our higher self, those nonphysical parts -- you can see that clearly too, and feel the vast creativity that connects each individual with the source of consciousness. The source of every individual and every consciousness is the same, yet they are also intricately complex. We can see that just by looking at the diversity of this world.

To do this, I hope to explore a more meaningful concept of evolution.

The current concept of evolution clearly makes no sense at all, so we need a more meaningful concept of evolution. The title of this book is Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment³, but the "evolution" here is not the same as the evolution we used to know -- it needs to be put in quotation marks.

And that concept necessarily involves a discussion of subjective reality and its influence upon the evolution (again in quotation marks) of human consciousness.

Put a highlight on subjective reality. We used to think this world is an objective world -- whatever is out there, we cannot change it. And what is the subjective world? This world is born from the mind; whatever you think in your heart, the world is created accordingly. The subjective world shifts according to your beliefs; whatever kind of world your subjective will wants to create, that is the world you can create. But our scientists believe this world exists objectively, and human thought cannot change it. Yet earlier Seth said that only when humanity understands that consciousness is energy, thought is energy, ideas are energy, and energy is matter, then your thoughts, your beliefs, your consciousness can create physical reality. This reality that is created is a subjective reality -- created according to your will. Of course it is a subjective reality, is it not?

This necessarily involves a discussion of the evolution of human consciousness. Does human consciousness also change from a simple consciousness to a complex consciousness? Can we discuss this change from simple consciousness to complex consciousness from something like an evolutionary perspective? Was the earliest human consciousness in the world something that went from simple to complex, or was it this complex from the very beginning? So here he puts it in quotation marks -- it is not what we humans understand, that human consciousness starts from something simple and becomes complex, like a little baby who seems to have no consciousness and gradually learns and grows up and develops its own ego consciousness. Is that really how it is? That is the evolutionary viewpoint. Seth is afraid you will misunderstand, so he puts quotation marks around the word "evolution" in "the evolution of human consciousness." It is not like that.

But if you say it is not like that, then what is it like? You cannot explain it clearly. Why? Because without the concept of time, human beings cannot think. Many scientists get stuck right here. Einstein, with such a brilliant brain, the one thing he could not accept -- in quantum mechanics, the one thing he could never break through in his heart -- was the idea that time does not exist. For him, that was unacceptable and incomprehensible. Because he genuinely felt the existence of time. He could accept that time is variable, that it can flow forward, flow backward, flow twisted -- all of that he could understand. Because he believed time is also something that exists objectively, and it can be distorted by changes in gravitational fields -- that was his own theory, the one he explained to people, and that he could accept. But when you told him that even time and space do not exist, he collapsed. The thing he had insisted on his whole life, the thing he had believed in his whole life -- when you told him that time and space do not exist, even for such a brilliant brain, he could not accept it.

So the fact that you cannot accept that time does not exist is an entirely normal thing, an entirely natural thing. Do not feel embarrassed, do not feel that you are abnormal. You are completely normal. Even though it is not correct, having that reaction is very normal.

So from the angle of evolution, the moment you mention evolution it involves time; the moment you say human consciousness went from simple to complex, it involves a process of development and unfolding. But actually there is no such thing. Time is something we humans created ourselves to play with, a tool we created for experiencing. It does not exist in itself; we created it -- just like your car, the house you built, the phone you made. It is our consciousness that created time, not that consciousness was born within the river of time. The two are in an inverted relationship. It is not that there is a long historical river, a cosmic time, from a beginning without beginning to an end without end, and within that kind of container our consciousness was born. Quite the opposite -- even time is a toy created by consciousness itself.

But very few people dare to think this way. If you do not dare to think this way, you are toyed with in the palm of time, and you are firmly confined by time and space within such a three-dimensional world. Only when you see through this illusion, when you break through this limitation of consciousness, this ceiling of consciousness, can you truly see a little bit of the truth of the world.

Seth says, when I discuss the origin of the universe, it will necessarily involve this. He says:

The universe does not originate from an external and objectified source, as you like to think of it.

For example, the singularity theory of the Big Bang -- is that not an external, objectified source? For example, God creating -- where is God? God created this universe from outside the universe. Is God outside the universe? Do you think there is something outside the universe that could be the source of this universe? Is there? No.

Do you think the fourth-dimensional world created the three-dimensional world, that the three-dimensional world is a projection of the fourth-dimensional world, and the projection source is in a higher-dimensional world? When we first began learning about spirituality, understanding it this way was correct, because it made it easy for you to break through the limitations of three-dimensional reality. But by the time you have learned up to this book, if you still use that simple logic to understand it, then you are still too naive. There is no external world, no higher-dimensional space, no external thing that created our universe. This universe comes from within your heart, it is created from within your heart. It is not some external thing -- a projection source, a lamp, a fourth-dimensional world -- that shines and the three-dimensional world manifests. It is not like that. As popular science for beginners, you can explain it that way, just like when you teach math to elementary school students, you say one plus one equals two, and that is absolutely true, and that is the only way you can explain it. Can you teach them imaginary numbers, complex numbers, those decimal points? You cannot. But when you reach your senior year of high school or college, as long as you have learned calculus, you plug the formula in, iterate, and as long as enough parameters are given to you, you can immediately calculate what proportion of the whole apple's volume is taken up by that irregular apple with a bite taken out of it. It is that simple. But to an elementary school student, it is like an astronomical figure.

So our source does not come from anything external. We do not have some higher-dimensional existence that you imagine. When we say there is a fourth-dimensional space, a fifth-dimensional space, that is just a way of speaking, because even space and time are things created by your consciousness, so how can you say there is some space of however many dimensions? His meaning is to make you understand that there is no such external, objective source.

Your own physical body provides you with a solid physical portrait, as well as your outward display.

This hundred-some pounds of flesh displays your existence.

Your dreams, for example, do not suddenly replace your features and externalize themselves upon your portrait; they remain hidden. Your dreams appear upon the inner screen of your own mind.

You have a dream where you suddenly change from single eyelids to double eyelids, and then you look in the mirror and find you still have single eyelids. Why is it that the double eyelids in your dream did not take effect? Your external features are still single eyelids. You say, that is not right, did you not say belief creates reality? Then if I already have double eyelids in my dream, I should have double eyelids in reality. Regarding the part about belief creating reality, there are specific laws and methods, and he will discuss them later. What he wants to say is not on that level. What he wants to say is, you can have double eyelids, but double eyelids exist as a possibility, on the inner screen of your mind. And in reality, whether you end up with single eyelids or double eyelids is determined jointly by the laws of this three-dimensional world and the inner laws of creation. A dream is the existence of a hidden possibility, while your externally manifested physical body, physical things, are the result of a certain possibility that has already been manifested.

The Fullness, Validity, and Grandeur of Physical Existence

He also said:

I never wanted any of my words to be interpreted in such a way that it seemed as if I were in any way denying the fullness, validity, and grandeur of physical existence.

Again, what I absolutely cannot stand the most is for you to interpret my viewpoint as: the physical world is not important, only the inner world is important. Remember, this is the statement I dislike the most. This is a point many people do not understand. After learning some spirituality, they feel the outer world is not important, only the inner world is important; the Buddha said it is like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow, so none of it is important. Remember, Seth is emphasizing to us here: he says I never deny, I never in any way deny the fullness, validity, and grandeur of physical existence — he used three words: fullness, validity, and grandeur. Here he is especially afraid you will go astray, afraid you will say, since the universe is originally created from the inner mind, then outer things are not important, let us just seek the inner mind. He quickly emphasizes this for you.

But Seth says:

I do, however, want to point out that the state you usually call dreaming is only a dim indication of the inner reality of events. It is a dim indication of your inner reality.

What Seth means is that the state in which you dream is an unclear display of inner reality — suppose there is an outer reality and also an inner reality — it is an unclear display of inner reality.

Dreams are the inner order of events out of which the physical world emerges.

What are dreams? Dreams are that inner order out of which the physical world — this solid three-dimensional world of ours — emerges. That is to say, dreams are the source of our three-dimensional world; they are an inner order.

I hope to show you how the nature of dreams has helped form human consciousness.

All of this will be told to you in this book. What is the nature of dreams, and how has the nature of dreams helped form our human consciousness. Has the formation of consciousness now come up? When you discuss the creation of the universe and the origin of the universe, do you not have to discuss the origin of consciousness? Here he tells you that the origin of consciousness is related to dreams.

Seth says he also hopes to show you:

What kind of environment consciousness was formed in, what kind of environment consciousness was formed under — rather than the reverse.

What is meant by the reverse? It means not letting you understand it as consciousness arising only after material conditions are in place — with a brain, with brain cells, with living things evolving from ocean to land, once conditions were ready, human beings then had consciousness. It is not that the outer environment produced consciousness; it is the reverse: consciousness forms the environment. It is consciousness that creates the environment, not the environment that creates consciousness.

I hope to show you that all species are motivated by what we call value fulfillment.

All things in the world are motivated by something called value fulfillment, spontaneously forming themselves:

In which each seeks to add to the quality of life for itself, and at the same time for all of its other species.

It should be the quality of life. Because in English it is one word, quality, and translating it here as "quantity" is not good. He says each one is seeking for itself, and at the same time adding to the quality of life for the other species. But using "adding" here is actually also not good, because quality does not involve the question of more or less; using "adding" always gives people the sense of an increasingly greater concept. Actually, the quality of life cannot be described in terms of more or less, big or small, high or low, deep or shallow, thick or thin — it cannot be described with any such two-dimensional language. But there is no way around it; language is limited. So in the end the Buddha had no choice; he could only use "neither increasing nor decreasing, neither defiled nor pure⁴" — no increase or decrease, no good or bad, no clean or dirty; this is what our original source is like.

This further unites all species in a cooperative venture.

It places all species within one great alliance of consciousness.

Generally speaking, because of the beliefs that your scientists and religions alike project outward upon the world, this has largely gone unseen.

That is to say, this cooperative venture uniting all species is invisible to our scientists and religions. Because they have always been exploring from the outside; when they always want to seek answers from outside, they cannot see these things. Only those who explore inward can see that originally we are connected with all things, that we are a collective, vast network of consciousness — including the consciousness of the earth, the consciousness of mountains, the consciousness of the sea, the consciousness of trees, the consciousness of all living beings and all species in the world — all connected together, like a dense, hyper-dimensional holographic information network, exchanging information at every moment.

The Universe Dreams Itself into Existence

He says:

All of your greatest civilizations have existed first in the world of dreams. You could say that the universe dreamed itself into existence.

He says that from a certain angle, you could put it this way: How did the universe come to be? The universe dreamed itself into existence. These four words are very important, very charged with divine meaning. The key word in them is "itself" -- not that there is a creator, not that there is a god, or someone who created it. No. The universe created itself. How did it create itself? It dreamed itself into existence. What does "dreamed itself into existence" mean? Through dreams, it turned itself into existence. First there was a beautiful dream, and then the dream came true, and it existed. That is how the universe was born.

Of course this is only the very roughest way of putting it. If he had to say it in one sentence, this is all he could say. Later, across two entire books, more than half of the discussion is about how the universe dreamed itself into existence, and there will be detailed explanations later on. But this one sentence is the same as what other religions say -- you should not blame other religions, because due to the time and circumstances then, they had no way to expand on it. But in different religions, in the historical periods they were in, they already did their utmost to describe the birth of the universe for you, only they could not tell you so thoroughly.

This book by Seth really resolves many people's curiosity about the origin of the universe, and clears up many people's confusion. Because those other accounts are basically just like the passage I just read -- too simple. You cannot say they are wrong, but they are not wrong; yet you cannot say they are right either, because you still do not know how the universe was born. The universe dreamed itself into existence -- well, explain that to me, and you still do not know what actually happened. It is the same as the Bible saying God said let there be light, and there was light⁵, or the Chinese saying Pangu separated heaven and earth⁶ -- you still have no details. And is it not the details that we now want to know?

The Importance of Dreams

Seth continued:

Generally speaking, the waking and sleeping states have been the only levels of consciousness that have been your primary concern. In your view, it seems as if this is an end point of your evolutionary process.

We human beings have only two states of consciousness, broadly speaking: one is the sleeping state, and one is the waking state. You humans have always been alternating between these two states -- sleeping at night, waking during the day, waking then sleeping, sleeping then waking, just such a process. You place your conscious focus on the conscious experiences within these two states.

But on the earth, there have been civilizations that specifically utilized many focuses of consciousness, just as you focus on the utilization of tools.

On this earth, there have also been other civilizations that utilized focuses of consciousness. They did not focus on waking consciousness and sleeping consciousness, just as we humans focus on the utilization and use of tools, while those civilizations did not focus on that.

Dreams can be extremely specific, because they were used to provide sources of counsel.

Many people come to have their dreams interpreted, because some dreams are extremely specific.

As part of humanity's evolutionary development (in quotation marks), and in terms of the possibilities within what you consider modern life, I wish to show the practical importance of dreams.

What role do dreams play? In your evolutionary development -- we feel that we humans are undergoing evolutionary development, from the Paleolithic era to the Neolithic era, to the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, to the later Industrial Age, to the current technological age, the information age, we feel that humanity as a whole is undergoing evolutionary development -- but this is in quotation marks, meaning it actually is not so. But we feel that it is. And in our current modern life -- setting aside history, just in each of our lives right now -- what use are dreams? He says dreams all have their practical importance.

The answer lies where you least look for it.

What he means is, do you want to keep exploring the answer to the origin of the universe? It is actually right there in dreams. But when would we humans ever think that the answer to the universe would be in dreams? We would never even think of it, absolutely never go looking there. We could go looking anywhere, but absolutely never go looking in dreams for the answer to the origin of the universe. Yet he tells you, the answer to the origin of the universe is right there.

The Universe Is Still Being Created

Remember, the universe is not something that was created and then it was done. The universe is being re-created in every present moment. You could also say that every present moment creates a new, brand-new universe. Is that correct to say? Yes, it is. You must remember, do not hold on to a traditional three-dimensional concept anymore -- that the universe was born at some point in time, at some particular time point, and then the universe was finished. Is the universe finished? Was the universe born? Or is the universe being born -- let us use Chinese tense, the English "-ing" tense. Is it present progressive or past perfect?

The universe is still being created.

Just as in every moment, every person is the same. Every moment is being created, and every person and every thing in every moment is being re-created. So the universe you experience is always the newest universe. Do not ask whether this is a universe that has existed for hundreds of millions of years -- according to scientists' calculations, it is now a universe that has existed for 13.7 billion years. No, for you the universe is brand-new in every moment.

Then Seth said, my preface is finished, and that should make Ruburt feel much better, because Ruburt kept worrying about this matter. He was humorously teasing Ruburt:

And please wait for us a moment, and let your hand rest. Please open it, open a bottle of wine, open this bottle of wine for him.

You see, at this time Jane was still drinking wine. After giving Jane some material, Seth ended the session, and then Seth said:

We have begun a new book again, and I trust that your own lively mind will bring interesting questions to the fore.

He was saying, I hope you, Jane, will maintain your lively personality, and that valuable mind of yours will bring out interesting questions. Then thank you, and good night again, and it was over. 9:56.

Why did it end so early? Because Jane's body is not like it used to be now. It is impossible for her to go on at great length like before, working three or four hours a night. Her health is not very good, so the sessions now are relatively short, but the difficulty is relatively high. You will see later on that Seth will pause for long stretches, not knowing how to put things, thinking.

About Scientific Creationists

Finally, let me say a few words about the creationists, because this has some connection to what comes later, and we will touch on it again. He recently bought two books written by scientific creationists.

"Scientific creationists" is an English term translated into Chinese. What does it mean? They strongly oppose the concept of evolution. To put it simply, creationists believe that God created the universe a little over ten thousand years ago. They call it "scientific creationism," but they insist that God created the entire universe, including the earth, a little over ten thousand years ago. Do you think this idea can hold up in the West? It cannot hold up at all. People do not even bother to debate them; they just think it is utterly absurd.

They maintain that since that main creation event occurred, all living things on earth have basically undergone no change. For example, they can explain the disappearance of the dinosaurs, as well as other enormous creatures we no longer see around us; they have offered some explanations for all of these.

On the other hand, evolutionists believe that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago⁷, that the earth itself is about 4.6 billion years old⁸, and that according to the fossil record and other evidence, organisms on earth first appeared at least 3.5 billion years ago⁹, and began evolving. We have been evolving for more than three billion years.

However, science also believes that the study of the "first cause" -- what is the first cause? It is the cause of the origin of the universe, how the universe originated; this is called the first cause -- this term "first cause" comes from Buddhist terminology, and it involves questions that are non-scientific but rather philosophical and theological. For example, why did the universe we think we know so well come into existence in the first place -- how did this familiar universe suddenly pop out? We now know that it came out of a dream. Why did it pop out? How did it pop out? And what was the cause of that beginning? Why did it pop out? Why did it want to manifest? Does not every dream you have also want to manifest? Why does this universe want to manifest its dream?

All right, the content that follows has only just begun. The content ahead is extremely wonderful. This book by Seth can truly be said to leave one sighing with emotion and filled with admiration. We will slowly unpack it for everyone later.

注释与核实

1. Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Definitions of SI Base Units" (https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/definitions-si-base-units) ↩

2. According to Mike's original words, "after 34 to 35 zeros after the 0 it cannot get any smaller"; upon verification it should be "the Planck length is about 10^-35 meters, but it is currently uncertain whether a minimum length exists, and whether the minimum length is the Planck length." (Source: Kevin Scharp, "On the indeterminacy of the meter," 2019, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-017-1552-3) ↩

3. Source: Penguin Random House, "A Seth Book" (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/series/E3L/a-seth-book/) ↩

4. This claim could not be verified. ↩

5. Source: Bible Gateway, "Genesis 1:3" (https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/zh/%E5%88%9B%E4%B8%96%E8%AE%B0%201%3A3) ↩

6. Source: Zhai Kuifeng, "Heaven and Earth in Chinese Philosophy," 2024 (https://www.nju.edu.cn/info/1056/375061.htm) ↩

7. Source: NASA, "NASA Telescopes Help Discover Surprisingly Young Galaxy," 2011 (https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/nasa-telescopes-help-discover-surprisingly-young-galaxy/) ↩

8. Source: United States Geological Survey, "Geologic Time: Age of the Earth," 2007 (https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html) ↩

9. Source: Smithsonian Ocean, "Ocean Through Time" (https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ocean-through-time) ↩