Mike's commentary · Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Session 882

The "Introduction" and "Key Points" of 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 block quotes are Seth's original words (the portions Mike read aloud).

Introduction

This chapter discusses the origin of the universe. The two tense-reversed sentences at the beginning show that "the universe began in the distant past" is equally meaningless; time is a created construct, a part of the universe. This chapter rejects the objective universe and the mechanical model, proposing that consciousness forms matter, and that the beginning of the universe was consciousness expanding and translating itself into physical form; each person's consciousness existed before the formation of the universe, belonging to the infinite creative process of All That Is, and the closest state to it is the dream state; all parts of the universe spontaneously and willingly fell into place, and life is recreated at every moment.

Key Points of This Chapter

• Time is a creative construct, a part of the universe; using a temporal scheme to search for the origin of the universe is futile.
• Creation happens in every moment; the present is a psychological platform.
• The universe was not created objectively; consciousness forms matter, and the beginning of the universe was consciousness expanding and learning to translate itself into physical form.
• Every consciousness existed before the formation of the universe, is part of the infinite creative process of "All That Is," and the closest state to it is the dream state.
• Creator and created are inseparable; all parts of the universe spontaneously and willingly fall into place, life is re-created in every moment, and it does not consume a fixed amount of energy.

Main Text

Seth's first passage

In the previous session we talked about the title of this Seth book. Today we formally enter Chapter One of Volume One of Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment -- the chapter is titled "Before the Beginning." This session is Session 882 of the Seth material, held on Wednesday, September 26, 1979, beginning at 9:14 p.m.

Rob said that Jane was quite relaxed this evening, but still decided to hold the Seth session. She was reading the book on creationism that I had recommended to her. Her feeling about the book was both ambiguous and strange. She said more than once that you have to be careful with those guys -- she meant the creationists. Otherwise they will lead you around by the nose. She was reminding Rob that you have to keep thinking constantly so as not to be led around by him. I can only read so many pages at a time -- she gestured with her hand -- not many pages.

And what Rob found amusing here was that many people wrote letters to the two of them, holding the same view about the Seth material: every time you have to be careful with these guys, be careful with the Seth material, otherwise you will be led around by the nose. Many readers reported the same issue to them, but Jane had not thought of that.

Actually, when some teaching comes into great conflict with your traditional beliefs, when it is overturning your beliefs, you will have an instinctive protective awareness, saying, "Oh, I need to be careful." This is normal. Jane said people should not be led around by the nose, yet other people reading our Seth material worry about being led around by the nose themselves.

However, apart from the conflict with the theory of evolution -- an ancient cosmic concept, evolution being a mid-level conflict from the Darwinian era -- the beliefs of these creationists do raise some questions that seem interesting to us. What Rob meant was that it is not because the creationists oppose evolution that we support them. We only think that any single belief system is far too insufficient to give a detailed explanation of reality. We want to expand our space of awareness further, broaden the width of our knowledge. No single doctrine or belief is sufficient to depict the whole of reality; at most they are only descriptions of a certain part of reality.

They really expected Seth to begin his new book tonight. As they sat waiting for the session to begin, Jane said, "Oh, these sentences about the book are in my head, and I am waiting for Seth to put them in place."

Then Seth said nothing else and began directly, first coming in with a whisper, saying "Good evening" in a low voice. Seth often opened in a humorous way. Then he said "Now" -- in the Seth material, before every dictation there is such a cue, indicating that the main text has begun.

Then came a long pause, one of many. Remember this detail -- later on he actually had many more pauses, but they will not be mentioned one by one.

The first sentence Seth spoke for this new book was:

The universe will begin yesterday. The universe has already begun tomorrow.

Let us look at the English; it is very interesting. The universe will begin yesterday. And the universe will begin tomorrow. Two words are used here, and the tenses are both wrong. Since you used "yesterday," why use "will" -- "will begin"? And since you used "tomorrow," why use the past tense "began" of "begin"?

Why use "tomorrow"? We can see it in the Chinese as well: the universe will begin yesterday -- yesterday has already passed. And tomorrow has already begun -- also reversed. Both of these sentences are grammatically wrong. If you were studying English for an exam, both of these sentences would definitely be wrong. Both of these sentences are utterly meaningless -- in terms of English tense, they are wrong.

Perhaps your sense of time is completely thrown into confusion. However, to say that "the universe began at some distant point in the past" -- such a sentence is basically just as meaningless.

In the very first sentence about the origin of the universe, Seth is telling you: if you speak of the origin of the universe, the moment you speak of origin you are speaking of the past -- "long, long ago" -- then the sentence "the universe began long ago" is just as meaningless as my two completely nonsensical sentences, "the universe will begin yesterday" and "tomorrow has already begun."

Let me go through it again: from this session onward, the difficulty begins to deepen, and everyone needs to keep up. What he means is that you say my two sentences have problems, because in terms of tense and logic they are both wrong. But if you say my two sentences are wrong, then your sentence "the universe began at some point long, long ago" is equally wrong. He even says that this sentence is meaningless -- a mistake still has the meaning of a mistake, but meaninglessness is even worse than a mistake.

Time Is a Creative Construct

So this first opening paragraph overturns everyone's concept of time. The two earlier statements—the universe will begin yesterday, and tomorrow has already begun—are obviously illogical, but what do they hint at? They show that time itself is nothing but a creative construct.

What does that mean? It means that time is only a construct we have created. The limitations we place on time in our use of language are something we have artificially created. Even our grammatical tenses are fixed in us from childhood—you speak according to such a tense, you think according to the logic of such a tense, and so you are inside this creative framework of time.

To put it more plainly: every one of us lives within the framework of time, and time itself was also created.

Then Seth says that time and space, in a certain way, are part of the furniture of your universe. Suppose the universe is a large living room, and inside it are all kinds of furnishings—there is the solar system, the galaxy, the earth. You cannot see time and space, but they are just as much a part of the universe as the galaxy, the moon, and the sun.

There is a very subtle detail here: it is part of the universe, meaning that it is within this universe. In other words, the universe was not created within a river of time—there is no time existing outside infinite space, in which the universe is born and then destroyed, and then a new one is born. There is no such time. Time is within the universe, created together with the universe. It is a created thing, so real, so existent, but do not think of it as above everything else. It is not.

He says:

Your experience of time passing "moment by moment" itself belongs to the rooms of your psychology, and is just as real as the clock hanging on your wall.

What does he mean by this? He says that time passing one tick at a time, moment by moment, is experienced, felt, and lived through by you. He makes an analogy: they are like rooms in your psyche, one after another; every moment-point of time is like a room, and whatever happens at that moment-point happens within that room.

Notice that he is making an analogy. Why does he compare it to rooms? Because rooms are more real. Time—you cannot see it. Who can see time? You can see yourself aging, but you cannot see time itself. If time is imagined as rooms, then doesn't it become visible? In every room a different story is happening; as you walk from one room to another, you see time in this way. It is just as real and objective as the clock on the wall.

Bashar's Metaphor for Time

On the subject of time, Bashar has a passage that explains it extremely well, but I haven't been able to find that video again since. I'll look for it later and see if I can insert it here. Bashar's explanation of time is really good. Let me briefly tell you how he explains time.

He thinks of time as one frame after another of film. Our motion picture film runs at 24 frames per second¹, and when linked together it becomes a moving picture. Suppose each frame has a photograph taken, and the things in the photograph we consider to be still, to be dead. Bashar says, imagine that the people in this photograph are all alive, and within this photograph there is its own space. It is not a flat two-dimensional thing; it has space.

At this point, at this momentary point of time, you can sense the existence of a process. For example, when you eat, when you take this bite of food, this sip of water, there is always a process. We understand this process as time, because you experience it.

Think of each momentary point as something with thickness and a certain amount of space, with the people inside doing one thing, a thing you can perceive, perhaps the smallest of things -- and that thing is one momentary point of time. Your life is made up of one small thing after another, one small process after another.

It is like imagining a three-dimensional film strip, where every frame is three-dimensional. Although it is a frame of time lasting one twenty-fourth of a second, the person inside that frame has an action, a process, a thought or an idea.

Bashar is making an analogy, and Seth is also making an analogy, both to help you understand this time. What he means is that time is not something so invisible and intangible. It is visible and perceivable, operable and workable. Because if it were a room, couldn't you renovate it, decorate it, build a new room, expand its capacity? Change the original cool color scheme into a warm one -- then the things happening within that time would undergo changes in mood or feeling. When you treat it as a thing, you can operate on it. Human beings currently cannot operate on time, because you believe you cannot operate on it. That is the simplest principle.

Seth first shatters this illusion for you. He does not first tell you that time does not exist; he tells you that time is also something we created -- just like the flowers, plants, trees, the stars and galaxies of the universe that we created. Since it was created, then like other created things, it can be manipulated and operated upon.

Science, Religion, and the Origin of the Universe

Once science and religion set out to explore the origin of the universe, they will go looking for it in the past. But the universe is being created right now.

Seth goes on to say:

In your human terms, creation happens in every moment.

Remember, this premise is according to our human terms. But is this phrasing rigorous? Not really. Because it speaks from the perspective of human time, saying that every moment is created, while the illusion of time itself is also being created in every moment.

For this reason, using a temporal scheme to search for the origin of the universe will more or less be a futile effort.

You use a created, relative illusion as your measuring stick, as your framework, as the premise of your discussion, to discuss the origin of the universe, and that in itself is futile. In Chinese, there is an idiom for this: climbing a tree to look for fish -- if you go looking for fish up in a tree, how could you ever find them? Because time is inherently relative, and you want to discuss the question of the absolute birth of the universe -- impossible.

Your present, or what you call this present moment, is a psychological platform.

In English he used the word platform -- platform. Your present, this present moment, is the only place where you can stand. This word "platform" has many layers of meaning, and he will use this word many times later on. What does it mean? If time is an illusion, then why does your present moment feel so real? It is precisely because you have this psychological platform of the present moment. All of your feelings, all of your experiences, all of your perceptions -- the emotions, feelings, mental, and spiritual things regarding the body and the material world -- all need such a psychological platform to carry them.

Why is this present moment so important? Because all operations, all functioning, take place upon this platform. To put it even more absolutely, to expand it a bit: apart from this psychological platform, you have nothing at all. Everything else only unfolds upon this platform.

Regarding this present moment, Seth has many incisive explanations, and he has explained it before as well; he called it the spacious present. Let us now continue exploring it in the way he presents it here.

The Big Bang Theory and the Fate of the Universe

It seems the universe began with an initial explosion of energy -- don't forget the "it seems" in front. This is called the Big Bang theory². There's a very popular TV show called The Big Bang Theory³, which is exactly this Big Bang theory.

The evolutionists, however, cannot explain its cause. The theory of evolution holds that the universe exploded from that starting point up to now -- from the initial production of matter and atoms, to matter, to the eventual emergence of life -- but it cannot explain the cause: where did the energy of that initial explosion come from? For the Big Bang process, they used a great deal of theoretical derivation and calculation, and they can only make it self-consistent. According to their theory, the universe is constantly expanding -- an explosion, after all, is like imagining an explosion going "boom," and then continuously expanding outward.

How did they discover the expansion? They discovered the phenomenon of redshift in light⁴. What is redshift? When you hear a siren or a car horn, if the car keeps honking as it passes by you, the sound changes, because the car's speed is changing, and the sound you hear changes -- the sound waves change. Light waves also change. Through light waves, scientists discovered that the universe seems to be expanding outward, rapidly moving away from some central point.

Then everyone used geometric calculations -- the most typical being solid spatial geometry -- since all these things are moving away, if you roughly sketch out their directions of motion and trace them backward. It's like when an explosive flies apart in all directions; when you trace backward to that point, everything points to a common point, and it seems you can find that point. So they came to feel that the Big Bang theory seemed to be the fundamental origin of the universe. But they still cannot explain why the Big Bang happened, or where the initial energy of the Big Bang came from. At that point, nothing can be explained clearly, so they just stop explaining.

Many devout people believe that a god exists in a larger dimension of reality. This refers to those who believe in religion. They believe that God exists in a larger world, and that our small world was created by God. This God himself, however, exists outside this universe -- because he is in a larger world, and we are in a smaller universe, and he initiated the creation.

Many people follow one of the two beliefs above. If you are a materialist, you believe in the Big Bang theory; if you are an idealist, you believe in divine creation -- God, the universe, or God, Buddha, Nuwa, it's all the same. Buddhism also has similar ideas, dividing people into however many layers of heavens -- the form realm, the desire realm, all the way up to the Tushita heaven, layer upon layer going up. We always have a feeling: we are a small universe, and there is a large universe. Buddhism says we are a small thousand-world; three thousand small thousand-worlds make up a middle thousand-world; three thousand middle thousand-worlds make up a great thousand-world⁵. You can search online for Buddhism's classification of the many layers of heavens; it is extremely detailed and elaborate, with a name given to every layer.

Simply put, the religious view holds that a god in a larger universe created our small universe; the materialist view says our universe exploded from a single point. How small was that point of explosion? It was at the Planck length. What is the Planck length? It is 10 to the negative 35th or 36th power meters⁶. The size of an atom is 10 to the negative 15th or 16th power⁷ -- so it is 10 to the negative 20th power times smaller than an atom. Can you even imagine a point that small? Our universe came from there.

Regardless of where the universe came from or why it originated, this universe must inevitably exhaust its energy -- both religion and science believe this. Established science firmly believes this: no energy can now be created anew or destroyed -- energy is conserved, and can only be converted from one form to another, only changing form. This is described by the first law of thermodynamics⁸, the law of conservation of energy.

Expanding further, there is a theory called "entropy." The movie Tenet⁹, which was very popular a while back -- it talks about the forward and reverse of time, and mentions the theory of entropy. Many people may have heard of it for the first time and found it amazing, but if you have even a little high school physics or basic physics knowledge, you know this is one of the most fundamental laws of thermodynamics.

What is entropy? Actually, the theory of entropy says that the universe will return to blandness. It's like boiling a kettle of water: while it's heating, the water bubbles and boils vigorously, but once you turn off the fire and stop supplying energy, this kettle of boiling water -- external energy heated it, just as the universe was ignited by external energy -- after the explosion, the universe became a whole, and the initial energy supplied to it was cut off, with no subsequent energy. What remains is the conversion among these energies. Energy will neither increase nor decrease. For a pot of boiling water in a sealed room, after it boils, the water molecules scatter outward, the temperature rises, the heat conducts outward, and eventually the temperature of the entire space tends toward uniformity, and the energy tends toward evenness. The water returns to calm.

Simply put, the universe will ultimately return to total stillness and silence. Because the final result of energy's motion tends toward equilibrium. Why? Because the Big Bang theory holds that the universe is constantly expanding -- no matter how much original energy you have, when it expands into infinitely vast space, the energy tends toward zero. The universe's final heat, as space expands, drops to the lowest point, down to absolute zero, which is negative 273 degrees¹⁰. The entire universe stops moving, with no motion at all -- in the words of modern science: the universe is dead.

Our current science can create very, very high temperatures, but very, very low temperatures -- down to negative 273 degrees, it cannot go any lower. No temperature can be lower than this. Scientists, through calculation and analysis, have concluded that at negative 273 degrees, nothing has any energy; energy is zero. Our superconductors were discovered in such low-temperature environments¹¹. When the temperature drops to negative 160, 180, 200-some degrees, those electrons, those atoms, their own activity stops. When they all stop moving, the electrons are released from the atomic nuclei and become free electrons, moving without resistance. When electrons move through a material without resistance, the material has no electrical resistance -- this is called superconductivity.

Scientists basically regard energy and matter as one and the same; this is the accepted consensus in modern science -- they just manifest differently under different circumstances. When we discussed The "Unknown" Reality, Session 681 or 682, we specifically discussed this issue: if consciousness and energy are equivalent, then consciousness also has the properties of energy. At that time, I briefly explained the basic properties of energy to everyone.

So now we know that energy and matter are one. If consciousness is also a form of energy, then science has moved onto the right track. Science only needs to acknowledge one thing -- that consciousness is also energy -- and then everything falls into place: matter is energy, and energy is also matter; consciousness equals energy, and energy also equals matter, which means consciousness creates matter -- doesn't that follow naturally? So it's just this one step away.

The Objective Universe Is Wrong

In a certain sense, both science and religion talk about an objective, created universe. Remember, the word "objective" is key here. Religion and science share a common point when they talk about the origin of the universe: they believe the universe exists objectively. What does objective existence mean? It means it does not shift according to human will. No matter what you think, you cannot affect its outcome, and you cannot change its structure or mechanisms. That is what "objective" means. So both religion and science believe the universe was objectively created — and on this point they are wrong.

Our universe is a subjective universe. But scientists have always believed the universe is objective. This essential difference has led to an enormous divergence — a divergence that can be described as a chasm, even greater than a chasm.

Then he goes on to say:

It was not created by a god, but after an initial explosion of energy, matter formed in some inexplicable fashion.

Because it cannot be explained clearly — when it comes to the Big Bang, scientists cannot explain a great many things.

And in a manner not yet explained, consciousness emerged from that matter that was originally lifeless.

Modern scientific theory holds that matter precedes life, and only with life does consciousness arise. Scientists believe consciousness is something exclusive to living things, and life evolved from matter — which means matter produced consciousness, and consciousness comes from matter. And scientists believe matter is dead, lifeless — lifeless things produced living things.

Now think about it carefully — step outside it today and think — don't you find it absurd? Scientists never find it absurd. Scientists give you a pile of reasons to explain why dead molecules and principles gave rise to life. They give you reason after reason to make you believe. But it cannot withstand people questioning it: why could a dead substance, a dead world, produce something with life force? Where does life force come from? Of course they will give you a pile of explanations — energy, biology, chemistry, photosynthesis, humans developing brains, brain cells... that is what science is doing these days. But at the most fundamental point, it does not make sense. It does not hold up. Why did a pile of dead things suddenly have life? They cannot explain where life comes from.

You might say, isn't there the theory of evolution? The theory of evolution has long been proven wrong. I have said this countless times already. Fine, if there is no theory of evolution, where does life come from? There is no reasonable explanation. Don't bring up the theory of evolution — let us first say the theory of evolution is wrong, and then you tell me where life comes from, and you simply cannot say.

So that is why people in ancient times believed in gods, and why so many religions are so widespread — because they could not explain it. Science cannot explain it clearly, and that leaves a great deal of room for religion. Religion jumps in: you can't explain it? I can tell you — this world was created by God, not evolved, but made by God.

Then Seth says "conversely" — from now on, when you see the word "conversely," just read it as "exactly the opposite." This "conversely" is translated as "conversely" throughout the Seth material, but its force is not strong enough, and it makes it hard for you to understand. When you see "conversely," just think of four big words: exactly the opposite.

Conversely, consciousness formed matter.

As we said earlier, every atom and every molecule has its own consciousness. Consciousness, matter, and energy are one — again, consciousness, matter, and energy are one. But consciousness initiated the change in which energy became matter — consciousness initiated energy, causing energy to become matter, and yet they themselves are all one, they are the same thing.

In those terms, the beginning of your universe — "beginning" in quotes — was a triumph of the expansion of consciousness.

Why put it in quotes? Because it involves the question of time — the "beginning" as we humans understand it. If you want to ask how the universe began, it was a triumph of the expansion of consciousness:

That is, consciousness learned to translate itself into physical form.

Consciousness learned how to turn itself into a materialized thing, and this universe was born. You might say, well, wasn't it created by consciousness? You might as well say it was translated by consciousness — the word "created" is not quite right; he uses "translated." Rather than saying the universe was created, it is better to say the universe was translated — originally a form of consciousness, now become a material form, simply different forms of energy.

Just as any idea emerges from the subjectivity as you understand it, and becomes physically apparent.

In our lives we often say "beliefs create reality." Any idea of yours — you want to build a house, and in the end you build that house — then that process itself is your idea creating it. It began as a thought in your mind. For example, humans got airplanes, wanted to build airplanes — seeing birds in flight, humans wanted to fly — and in the end they built it. Such a process is an idea becoming physical matter, from subjective emergence becoming physical matter.

The universe emerged into physical form in the same way, but to a different degree. There is something interesting here: he does not say "created," he does not say "built," he says "emerged." The meaning of "emerged" is that it was already there, it had not emerged, it was latent. That is to say, all material forms already existed on the level of consciousness before they took physical form, but you could not see them until they emerged — just as an artist has a picture in his mind, and before he paints it, no one but himself can see it. You can call this process creation, making, painting — artists often use the word "creation." But what is it really? It is the process of his consciousness emerging, the process of making it visible to you. How did our universe come about? Our universe came about exactly this way.

Before the Beginning

He went on to say:

The consciousness of every reader of this book, in your terms, existed before the universe was formed.

Is that frightening? Your consciousness already existed before the universe was formed. If you think about this using the human concept of time, it really is quite frightening. According to scientists, the universe was born 13.7 billion years ago¹² -- never mind how they arrived at that number, it was extrapolated: they calculated the rate of expansion, ran the universe backward in reverse, and through this reverse-engineering method inferred that the universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years. 13.7 billion years ago -- in human terms -- before the universe had even been born, every one of you -- not the consciousness of humanity as a whole, but each individual, your present thoughts, your present ideas, this consciousness of yours -- already existed. That is how it seems if you think about it in human time.

But in actual fact, this time does not exist at all, and these 13.7 billion years do not exist either -- these are all things people themselves have made up.

Let us follow Seth's logic. This fellow's intelligence is extraordinarily high; he takes such a difficult question and lays it out with perfect clarity using his own logic. Many people have always suspected that Jane was just talking to herself, but when you read The "Unknown" Reality, and especially when you read these books, you will find that this is not something a human brain could have imagined.

That is to say, before the universe was born, your consciousness already existed, but that consciousness had not yet manifested. Today it has manifested; the thoughts in your head have all manifested.

The state closest to your existence before the universe was formed -- and this is only an approximate state -- is the dream state.

He does not know how else to make the comparison. Your consciousness already existed before the universe was formed; what kind of state of existence was that? Remember, at this point he is still speaking in human terms -- including the title of this chapter, "Before the Beginning," which is also framed in the human concept of time. Because "before the beginning" -- these are all definitions tied to time. There is no way around it; it is hard for you to understand otherwise. If he did not put it this way, you would not know what he meant, and it would be even harder to understand. So he first uses the framework of human time to make things clear, and then he dismantles that framework of time for you, so that you can approach this original state.

He says the state you humans are closest to, the state before the birth of the universe, an approximate state -- remember the word "approximate," do not forget it -- is your dream state. The state of existence before the birth of the universe is approximately like your dream state.

Your consciousness is a part of an infinitely creative process of creation.

Look at these words here: a part of an "infinitely creative process of creation." And what is this infinitely creative process of creation? It is called All That Is. In other words, our consciousness is a part of All That Is.

Because of the connotations placed upon it by conventional religion, I shall purposely avoid the word "God."

He says that throughout this entire book he has rarely used the word "God." Throughout the whole book, I will try to explain the characteristics of this sacred process -- a process I call All That Is. He says he cannot use the word "God," because it carries too many connotations. The moment I use "God," you think of religion. And Seth stands above religion and science; his theoretical framework is above both of them -- he is afraid you will misunderstand, so he avoids the word "God."

He tries to explain this sacred process. What kind of sacred process? It is the last sentence of the passage above: your consciousness is an infinitely original creative process. What does "original" mean? Unique -- the things your consciousness creates are different from the things mine creates. You create your world, I create mine, and each one is unique. And this originality is infinite, without any limitation whatsoever. This infinite, original, creative process is this sacred process. Then he says:

I call this process All That Is.

Many people do not know the definition of All That Is. It is only here that he gives you the precise definition of All That Is: All That Is is not the combination of all things -- it is not a static thing; All That Is is a process. It is a dynamic, original, creative process in which something new comes into being every minute and every second. You see, we used "minute and second" -- again using words of time, when really we should not use such words, but if you do not use them, you cannot understand.

A process that is creating every minute and every second, a creative process that never stops -- this process is called All That Is. It is not that the sum total of the entire universe is All That Is -- rather, all the things in the entire universe added together, plus their own original creativity, the entire process of their creation, and the things they have created, all combined together, is what is called All That Is.

Let me say it again so you understand: all the materialized things in this universe, the creative process of each of these materialized things, the sum total of the created things and the creative process -- even these things alone are not enough to represent All That Is. There is also the creation of these things, their being created, and their still creating new things -- such a process as a whole is called All That Is. This All That Is is the God spoken of in religion, but that "God" has already taken on too many special meanings because of human definitions.

Seth says that All That Is is so much a part of its creations that it is almost impossible to separate the creator from the created -- and he put both of those words in quotation marks.

Why "Creator" and "Created" Are in Quotation Marks

All That Is is a creative process. Is the result of the creative process a created thing? Yes. But All That Is is not merely the created thing—it is the creative process, including the creator, the created, and the process of creation itself, a trinity.

Let me put it another way so it is easier to understand. We usually say "a painting," meaning the finished work already framed and hanging on the wall. But that way of putting it is incomplete. Today when we say a painting, it includes the person who created the painting—the painter—plus the painting that was created, plus the process of his painting. These three things together are what we call a painting. When we speak of All That Is, we are referring to this trinity of creator, created, and the creative process, collectively called All That Is.

The reason you find this hard to understand is that you always want to stand outside the "creator" and the "created" to look at this question. A couple of days ago someone sent me a private message, saying he was debating with someone about what time is, and he could not win the argument. Another person asked: You say belief creates reality, everything is created, so who created the sun? Was it created by each of us in the collective consciousness? Or did the sun create itself?

Many people ask this question. Look at the question itself, and you will see why Seth puts "creator" and "created" in quotation marks. The reason you ask this question is that you are still standing inside the quotation marks.

Let me give a simple example. Let us not talk about something as far away as the universe; let us just talk about the solar system. Without the sun there would be no solar system. The mass of the sun accounts for 99% of the entire solar system¹³; Earth, Jupiter, Mercury, and Mars combined account for only 1%¹⁴. The origin of all life on our Earth, plants and animals, depends on the sun. Without the light and heat of the sun, there would be no Earth, no life, no humanity, no such thing as collective consciousness. So tell me, did collective consciousness come first, or did the sun come first? If there were no humans to ponder the question "Who created the sun?", would the sun still exist for you? If even you did not exist, who is asking this question? You say, if I did not exist, others would still ask. But if this universe did not have you, how would you know that others would ask? Does not all of this, everything, presuppose the perception of your consciousness?

What if the sun's temperature were a little higher? Then Earth would have no life. A little lower? What if the distance were a little farther? A little closer? What if Earth's diameter were a little larger? There is no need to keep discussing. Do you understand now—do not ask the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. That is exactly the question you are asking. The root of this question is that in your mind you have separated the creator from the created: there is always someone who creates, and something that is created.

You say: Fine, I will not separate them; I think they are one, all things are one. But you "separate them and then pinch them back together"—you first separate, there is a creator, there is a created, there is the sun, there is us, and then you pinch them together. What is the real state of affairs? There is no creator, no created, and no thing that creates. Everything is one. To put it bluntly: you are the sun, and the sun is you; you are all things, and all things are you. You are creating, and you are also created by all things. This is very much like the hypercube in that video I showed you—there is no inside and no outside. You always want to distinguish inside and outside, front and back, big and small, but none of these exist. Separating them and then kneading them back together is a different concept from their being one to begin with.

So Seth goes on to say:

Because no created thing can fail to carry within it the characteristics of its source.

Every created thing carries the characteristics of its source. The source is its creator. So how do you separate them? In other words, does not every one of us, every blade of grass, every flower, every grain of sand, every clod of earth, even the entire Earth, carry the characteristics of the sun? The characteristics of the universe? The characteristics of the galaxy? Later on Seth will have a long passage to take this matter apart and explain it thoroughly. That is why he says in the preface to this book that it is "the most ambitious work"—he insists on making clear what cannot be made clear. Do not be impatient, everyone; there are two volumes, and we will slowly enjoy this process. Brew some good tea, set out some melon seeds, listen slowly, read slowly, and imperceptibly your consciousness will be expanded.

The Universe Is Not a Machine

Seth continued:

If you think the universe follows a mechanical model, then you must say that every part of this universal machine creates itself.

What does a mechanical model mean? It is like a machine, a piece of equipment, such as the solar system in the eyes of scientists: the sun in the middle, nine planets revolving around it. Other star systems make up the Milky Way, and the Milky Way makes up this or that constellation. This view is a mechanical model. If you do not understand, just look at the design principles of clocks and watches—the flywheel, the tourbillon, they are very close to the operating mechanism of planets.

If you insist on looking at the universe from a mechanical angle, that the universe is made up of various parts and can be taken apart like components, then I will tell you this: every part of the universe creates itself. No one is creating it. Remember, no one is creating it—this is the key. Do not think that All That Is created it.

You now know that All That Is is an entire process of creation, and every part of the universe participates in it. Do you say that the parts of the universe were created by All That Is? No. If you still have that idea, then you still have not understood the principle I explained earlier.

And within the entire framework of the future, it knows its own position.

"Framework of the future"—again he put it in quotation marks. There is no future here, no time—time is an illusion, so how could there be a future? But to make it understandable to humans, he must use the vocabulary of time. According to human concepts of time and space, the things that will happen in the future—at the very beginning, they must have known their own position, known what they would develop into. What you will look like in the future, your inner self knows completely; what day you will die, and after death what kind of person you will reincarnate into, your inner self knows completely; including where you will be two hundred years from now saying which sentence, your inner self also knows completely. So is this determinism? No. You place all the possibilities of what you could say here—for example, you could say a thousand trillion kinds of sentences, and all these thousand trillion possibilities are compressed in here. Whichever sentence you say, it is one of those millions upon millions of sentences. This part has already been explained very clearly in The "Unknown" Reality, so we will not go back over it.

Every part of the universe knows what role, what function, what purpose it should assume within this universal structure, and then it will obediently, honestly unfold itself along the timeline as we humans understand it. Remember the analogy I used on the first day when we talked about Evolution? The top is a ball of yarn, and when unrolled it might be 200 meters long. What you see is a small ball, and you cannot see inside it, but this ball of yarn can be knitted into a sweater. It can also become a hat, a scarf, socks, gloves—all kinds of forms. Every part of the entire universe knows what form it should manifest. That it is not manifesting now does not mean it does not know what it will become later.

All of this is based on assumptions made under the premise that humans have a concept of time—because right now we can only understand it this way. What will the universe look like next year? It was known very, very long ago, before the universe was even born.

You must further say that each individual part gladly bursts forth from its own source, trimmed exactly to fit its position.

This is very crucial. Why did he add this sentence? If he did not, you would have a misunderstanding: that the universe was set up by a grand pattern, that you were set up by a larger mechanism—"All That Is"—and when the time comes, you just have to play your role. He was afraid you would have this illusion, so he deliberately added this sentence: it is glad to do so.

The sun is the sun because it is glad to be the sun; the earth is the earth because it is glad to be the earth; why is that stone a stone? Because it is glad to be a stone. Why are you you and not someone else? Because you are glad to be who you are now.

But this "gladness" is not the gladness our human minds understand. You might say: I am not glad, I am not satisfied with my current life, I want to be better looking, younger, taller, more handsome, prettier, richer... I am telling you, this gladness is different from what you understand. This gladness is actually the last term in this book—value fulfillment. I analyzed this term specifically earlier. Fulfillment carries the meaning of "something you want to complete"—not that someone else forces you to complete it, not that the universe needs you as a screw so you come to be a screw, but that you are glad to be it.

Why does it fit exactly? Not one bit more, not one bit less. You say, is that not incredible? It is just that incredible. If you insist on asking "why is it this way," then I will answer from a science and engineering perspective: because these consciousnesses form a vast internal network, exchanging information at every moment. Are you satisfied now? Is that actually how it is? You can tentatively understand it this way for now, and we will discuss it further when the time is right. At least for people in science and engineering, this makes sense, it is reasonable, and that is enough.

At the same time—remember this "at the same time," do not forget it—at the same time, that individual source, the source of every species, of every individual, is also just as intimately the source of every other individual part. Here he overturns your consciousness again. You say, fine, flowers have their source, trees have their source, every person has their own source, that is understandable. But he says: every person's source is also the source of other people, "intimately"—not in the way of some feel-good spiritual saying, but truly and genuinely. The "oneness" of all things is here.

So if we all share the same source, why are we still so different? Why is the difference between male and female so great, the difference between two men so great, the difference between two women so great? Why? Diversity. We will discuss this question again later; for now, just understand "one source."

Preventing You from Falling into the "Psychic Universe" Pit

At this point you might slip into another misconception. You might think: doesn't the entire universe come from the dream state? Isn't it the result of our psyche? You would shift from a mechanistic view to a psychological view. Seth quickly corrects you:

Nor am I saying that the universe is the result of some psychological machine.

You say, since the universe is not the result of the Big Bang, not the result of a mechanical model, then is it the result of some kind of psychological pattern? Seth quickly corrects this: no. Because if he did not correct it at this moment, you would immediately jump from materialism to idealism -- nothing exists outside the mind, the mind gives rise to all phenomena, the mind shifts with circumstances -- you would leap right into that. He says that is not what he means to express.

He means to say that every portion of consciousness is a portion of All That Is, and that the universe falls together in a spontaneous, divine order.

Remember, "spontaneity" is the premise. The universe has many principles; the principle of spontaneity is one of them, value fulfillment is another, and later we will discuss other principles as well. Spontaneity is the fundamental principle of the entire universe -- all universes, all space-time, all dimensions. Once you understand this spontaneity, you will no longer ask "why." Before, you were always asking why: Why is it like this? Why does the child do that? Why do I do that? Once you understand that the core principle of the universe is spontaneity, will you still ask? It is spontaneous; there is no why.

And each portion of consciousness carries within it an indelible knowledge of the whole.

Every consciousness -- like each one of us, every atom, every cell -- contains an indelible knowledge of the whole, of All That Is, of the entire universe. This is the concept of the holographic universe. The meaning of a hologram is this: even if it is shattered into a hundred pieces, you take out one small piece, shine a laser on it, and it can still reconstruct the original image in its entirety. Holographic means all the information. Our universe is just this magical: any single point contains all the information of the entire universe. That is why the Buddha said "one grain of sand is a world, one leaf is a bodhi¹⁵," and the Daoists said "the greatest has no outside, the smallest has no inside¹⁶" -- what you consider infinitely large and infinitely small are one and the same thing.

What he breaks down here is, on the one hand, the "affliction" of the mechanical universe, and on the other, the "affliction" of the God-created universe -- the universe was not created by a god, not created by God. The universe spontaneously, according to a set of divine order, fell together. Every consciousness wants to be itself, carrying its own satisfaction, willingness, and desire for value fulfillment, expressing itself. Every individual expresses itself, and the entire universe is born.

The Purpose of the Universe

The birth of the world represents a sacred psychological awakening (in your terms).

According to our human way of speaking, with our concepts of time and space, before this planetary Earth on which we now live was formed, every consciousness participating in the material universe dreamed of such a material existence. As long as you exist within this material universe, whether you are a human, a cat, flowers, plants, trees, or even metal, you have dreamed of the Earth, or of the creatures on Earth. Every consciousness participating in it has existed, is existing, or will exist in dreams -- however you say it, it amounts to the same thing.

To put it in terms one level higher than ours, one level above -- remember, only one level greater than our way of speaking -- how shall I put it?

To say that the universe has not yet been formed, or to say that the universe has already vanished, are both quite true.

These two are opposites: one says it has not yet formed, the other says it has already vanished, yet both are correct. A bit confusing here, right? What about us? He goes on:

Yet in still larger terms, the fact is that the universe exists in a certain form or state.

These two sentences are very profound. You say the universe has not yet formed -- doesn't that imply there is something that is going to form? The concept of the universe is already there; otherwise, what would you mean by saying it "has not yet formed"? You say the universe has already vanished -- what is it that vanished? Don't you also need the concept of the universe first before you can say it vanished? Whether you say it has not yet been born or it has already vanished, both imply the existence of the concept of the universe. So in larger terms, both of these statements are incorrect. What is the more ultimate statement than these? It is that the universe exists in a certain state. What kind of state is it? Uncertain. Remember that? This is the relatively more ultimate statement. Whether or not you see it, feel it, or cognize it, whatever the universe you see looks like, that is one of its states. What we feel right now is the state of this universe.

So what is the purpose of the universe? Many people want to ask: what does the universe want to do? Seth says, using the understanding that you humans can most closely approach -- remember, the closest understanding, not the real one; never mistake it for the actual purpose of the universe -- he says:

The purpose of the universe can be found in that devoted affection you feel for the development of your own children, in your intent that they be able to fully develop their abilities.

Just like your expectations for your children -- hoping your son will become a dragon and your daughter a phoenix, which, to put it plainly, is simply hoping that your children will bring the potential of the best among humans to its fullest expression. We all carry such an expectation within us. If you want to understand the purpose of the universe, use this emotion to feel it by analogy. The universe also hopes that every individual -- every person, every animal, every flower, every tree, every mountain and river -- can bring its own full abilities into play. The ocean does what the ocean should do, bringing the ocean's abilities to their fullest; the sun brings the sun's abilities to their fullest; a human being brings the potential within you to its fullest.

Your highest aspirations can give you a vague clue.

What are the highest aspirations? In Bashar's terms, it is the highest joy -- living according to your highest point of joy. The term Seth uses is "the highest aspirations"; remember, the highest, not ordinary aspirations. Think about what was in your mind when you had just graduated from college. Many people have now had their edges worn smooth by society, wrapped in layer after layer of external things. But think back to when you were young and reckless, when you had just turned eighteen -- didn't you feel then that you could accomplish something great, that you could change the world? The driving force behind your highest aspirations in life is the most central intent of the universe. It is written into every person's genes, written into every cell. Behind it all, the intent of the universe is pushing it forward; we have simply suppressed it. If you let it go, it is the intent of the universe.

So I always tell everyone to respect the impulses within. In Bashar's terms, pursue your highest joy; this is the way of the universe. This is what Laozi meant by the place where the Dao resides. If you want to walk on the Dao, live according to your impulses, live according to the greatest aspiration in your heart, and you will be united with the universe. You say, I don't dare, I'm afraid of losing my job, afraid of having nothing to eat -- the universe is yours, and you are still afraid of these things? If you are afraid, it means you have not yet attuned to the universe; you are still thinking from the position and role of a created thing. You think of yourself as a tiny person, created by someone. You have not returned to the position you should occupy. You are a part of this universe. The aspiration and longing in your heart should burst forth. In the words of ordinary folk, only then will you not have lived in vain, not have walked through this world in vain.

Many people ask me how to become enlightened, how to leap beyond the Three Realms and out of the Five Elements, what methods there are -- all those are secondary. The most central point: can you first live as yourself? This is the most basic, and also the most fundamental and ultimate. As long as you fully live yourself out, you will no longer need to explore within this material world; you will have a higher field to explore. In this material world, put your hand on your chest and ask yourself: have you done the things you truly want to do in your heart? Why haven't you done them? What did you come into this world to do, after all?

And it is connected with the great creative impetus behind your most minute actions.

The most minute actions include eating and drinking. Behind these tiny actions there is a great creative impetus, which is your impulse. That most primal impulse comes from the universe. Don't blame yourself for being so impulsive, for why your heart is always full of passion, for why, when there are no constraints, you are so joyful and so eager to do things -- because that is the essence of the universe. When you strip away the artificial morality, constraints, society, wealth, and other external things, you live within your own aspiration. When Buddhism says "the Dao is in shit and piss," it is the same principle -- behind the impulse to shit and piss, there is the power of the universe within it.

Every Moment Is Recreated Anew

And the most minute of your own actions are possible only because you have already been given a body within the physical world, because you have already been given life.

The reason these small things in your life can be accomplished is, first, because you have a physical body. Without this body, could you eat, drink, or walk? No. The premise is that you have a physical body, and you also have life. You feel that none of this is miraculous, that it is all natural. But giving you a body, bestowing life upon you—behind all of this is the primal impetus of the universe driving it. In other words, it is your own consciousness wanting to live itself out, and you manifest yourself—that primal impulse behind it is the creative impetus mentioned above.

The power of the universe shows itself in every minute and every second of your life. It does not only show itself in major events; it does not require the heavens to split apart or purple clouds to drift by. In every minute and every second of your life, the greatest power behind the universe is embodied. That is why you have impetus, why you have life force, why you have vitality. Where do you think it comes from?

Life is renewed in each moment.

Returning to the concept of time, let us understand it this way: your life is perpetually in a state of being renewed. You ride upon the energy of life so steadily and effortlessly that you are completely unaware of it. The universe bestows upon you the energy of life, and you ride upon this energy, doing the things in your daily life that your impulses drive you to do, and you simply cannot perceive the source behind it—it all comes from that most primal purpose of the universe, value fulfillment. I will add a sentence here to help you understand.

You are not equipped with a given amount of energy.

It is not that your life energy is fixed, like a cell phone battery that is fully charged for you and then dwindles with use—a cell phone battery lasts a day, a person's energy lasts a hundred years, and when it is used up, you die. It is not like that. It is exactly the opposite:

Instead, you are recreated in each moment.

Not only is there not a fixed amount of energy to be consumed, but on the contrary, you are recreated in each moment. Your life is bestowed anew in every moment. The energy and power of your life, nourished at the source of the universe, are recreated anew in every moment. Every second of yours is brand new, and your energy is inexhaustible.

End of Session One

Seth said, "I have said enough for today." Actually, the length was quite short, but the substance and depth were sufficient. He knew that what he had said needed to be digested. He said thank you.

The session ended at 10:02 -- really very short. But Jane said she did not mind. After she came out of the trance state, she said, I believe that was all there was for tonight, and if there had been more, I would not have stopped as if turning off a faucet. Rob said, May I assume that was Chapter One? Jane said, Oh, all right, she had not mentioned it all along. Then she said, All right, tomorrow I will paint, and then forget about this whole business of evolution. But actually she did not paint -- she went on writing her own book, Jane's God, and also finished the book on creationism.

That concludes our commentary on the first session of this book. Through such a short session, you can also see how far-reaching and vast the content is that Seth wanted to lay out. Let us thoroughly enjoy the whole process of exploration and understanding, and let him lead us as we explore together how the entire universe came into being.

---

注释与核实

1. Source: Kodak, Glossary of Motion Picture Terms (https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/glossary-of-motion-picture-terms/) ↩

2. This claim could not be verified. ↩

3. Source: Xie Fang and Huang Yan, "Television Drama's Cultural Communication Strategy—Interpreting the Chinese Cultural Elements in the American TV Series The Big Bang Theory" (https://paper.people.com.cn/xwzx/html/2016-01/01/content_1673627.htm) ↩

4. Source: NASA, Hubble Cosmological Redshift, 2024 (https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/science/science-behind-the-discoveries/hubble-cosmological-redshift/) ↩

5. This claim could not be verified. ↩

6. Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2022 CODATA adjustment (https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/all.pdf) ↩

7. According to Mike's original words, "the size of an atom is 10 to the negative 15th or 16th power"; upon verification, it should be "the diameter of an atom is about 10^-10 meters, not 10^-15 or 10^-16 meters; the 10^-15 meter scale corresponds to the atomic nucleus." (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Fundamentals of Chemistry, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/DOE-HDBK-1015-93_VOL1.pdf) ↩

8. This claim could not be verified. ↩

9. Source: Central News Agency, "Tenet Taiwan Box Office Breaks 100 Million in 6 Days, Director Nolan Personally Records Video to Thank Taiwan," 2020 (https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/202009040031.aspx) ↩

10. Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology, About Cryogenics (https://www.nist.gov/mml/acmd/cryogenic-technologies-project/about-cryogenics) ↩

11. Source: Matteo Rini, Explaining Mercury's Superconductivity, 111 Years Later, 2022 (https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/s155) ↩

12. Source: European Space Agency, Cosmic eras (https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Cosmic_eras) ↩

13. Source: NASA, Sun: Facts (https://science.nasa.gov/sun/facts/) ↩

14. According to Mike's original words, "Earth, Jupiter, Mercury, and Mars together account for only 1%"; upon verification, it should be "by mass, Earth, Jupiter, Mercury, and Mars together account for about 0.096% of the total mass of the solar system, not 1%." (Source: NASA, Chapter 1: The Solar System, https://science.nasa.gov/learn/basics-of-space-flight/chapter1-2/) ↩

15. This claim could not be verified. ↩

16. Source: Lü Buwei, Lüshi Chunqiu, Shen Da Lan, Xia Xian (https://ctext.org/lv-shi-chun-qiu/xia-xian) ↩