Mike's commentary · Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Session 884

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

Guide

This chapter begins with the idea that energy equals consciousness equals matter, pointing out that particles are energy-ified consciousness, and that energy itself is creative, inventive, and imaginative, though not anthropomorphized. Atoms and molecules imagine and dream into being combinations such as cells, but everything happens instantaneously rather than in temporal sequence. Value fulfillment is regarded as the most important ingredient of All That Is; every portion of energy fulfills its potentials through all possible variations and promotes one another. Subjectivity gradually gives way to objectivity, and All That Is, in its bewilderment, realizes that creation deviating from the center is still its own intent; only by allowing separation could the material universe come into existence. Dreaming provides an inner communication network among species.

Key Points of This Chapter

• Energy equals consciousness equals matter; particles are energy-embodied consciousness, and matter is only one form of energy.
• Energy itself possesses creativity, inventiveness, originality, and imagination; the corresponding human traits derive from the qualities of energy.
• Atoms and molecules imagine and dream out tissues and other organizations, but all of this happens instantaneously, not as a temporal sequence of evolution.
• Value fulfillment is the most important ingredient in the existence of All That Is; each portion of energy fulfills its potentials in all possible variations and mutually promotes the others.
• All That Is permits off-center creation and separation, which is why the physical universe can exist; dreaming forms an inner communication network among species.

Main Text

Chapter 2: In the Beginning

The beginning of this chapter actually corresponds to the latter half of Session 884. Because Session 884 only made a start, the real content is all here. So I am treating this Chapter 2 according to the book's chapters, which means dividing Session 884 into two parts.

Seth comes right out and says that we are beginning Chapter 2, titled "In the Beginning." He opens by saying:

In your terms, energy equals consciousness equals matter.

Why does he say "in your terms"? This is something we need to get clear on first. For now, just accept that energy equals consciousness equals matter, and first get your understanding straight on equating these three. And defining it in that way is necessary -- why is it necessary? Because we need to distinguish which is matter, which is consciousness, and which is energy. From a higher level of consciousness, these three have no distinction -- not only is their essence the same, but from essence to outward expression to form, there is no distinction. But we people in the three-dimensional world make strict distinctions. Although we know their essence is the same, their outward forms are different, and this is the difference between our understanding and that of higher dimensions. In theory we know they are one, but in essence we can still distinguish their differences, and that is a fact. You cannot say, never mind the difference, I will just identify with it -- as long as you can still distinguish which is thought and which is matter, you have to acknowledge this reality: the difference between thought or consciousness, energy or matter, it exists, it simply exists.

Among these three, consciousness is the original impetus. It directs energy and transforms forms. Energy can become all kinds of forms, and one of those forms is materialized expression, while there are also other non-materialized expressions. So it is not the case that in this world, apart from matter, nothing else truly exists. Matter is only one of the forms of energy, and energy has many other forms -- the light energy, solar energy, wind energy, electromagnetic energy that we are familiar with, these electrical signals and so on, we all know about these.

Seth goes on to say:

All possible, visible or invisible particles that you discover or imagine -- the particles I have been postulating -- possess consciousness. They are energized consciousness.

This passage actually already goes quite deep. To put it simply, it means all the particles that humanity can imagine or cannot imagine, can see or has not yet seen, might possibly see in the future -- and then, afraid that you might misunderstand, he adds a sentence, specifying that he means those particles that you postulate, that you believe in.

So do these particles really exist? No, these particles do not exist. But we believe that they exist in the form of particles. Is not the foundation of science that first there are molecules, then atoms? But these particles, when atoms are further divided, they get divided very finely, and in the end it is just energy, there is no matter. You ask what an atom is made of -- an atom has protons and neutrons, protons and neutrons have quarks, and below quarks? Layer by layer, in the very end, it is the string of current superstring theory. What is that string? It is a segment of energy, like the hair ties or rubber bands that girls use, a segment of energy vibrating at superluminal speed, itself existing within a ten- or eleven-dimensional space.

So what is matter? Matter is energy. The smallest matter is energy. So here he tells you that, assuming there are such particles -- because you can only speak within this context -- these particles all have consciousness, and they are energized consciousness.

Then is there consciousness that cannot be energized? No. All consciousness has energy; how could there be consciousness that is not energized? Then why does he specifically point out "energized consciousness" here? The "energized" here refers to the kind of energy that can be perceived and detected in our three-dimensional world. There is some energy that cannot be detected in the three-dimensional world, such as the life force of living things, which you cannot detect; the energy of our consciousness is also very hard to detect -- although we now have instruments like EEG machines, and we can already measure the fluctuations and changes of brainwave energy, which was not possible before.

So the "energy" here refers to the kind of energy that can be observed in our three-dimensional world, that is, the E in E=MC squared, the energy that is necessarily tied to mass. We assign every particle its mass. Where does this mass actually come from? This question is very complicated. Mass has nothing to do with gravity -- Earth's gravity makes us feel weight, our body weight of over a hundred pounds, how heavy a phone is, how heavy a car is, that is gravity, not mass. Although under approximately equal parameters, in certain places mass is approximately equal to weight, these two are complex concepts. Mass in physics is another matter entirely; mass does not change with gravity, it is a constant, it is fixed. But where does mass actually come from? If you want to figure this question out, go search online for "where does the mass of matter actually come from," and the more you research it, the more confused you will get.

I will not get into it for now; I am only explaining to you why he emphasizes "energized consciousness" -- I am afraid you might misunderstand and think there is consciousness that is not energized. There is not. All consciousness is energized, except that the "energized" here should be in quotation marks, referring to the energy that is recognized within the three-dimensional world of Earth. What is a particle? A particle is consciousness that has already been energized -- the energized consciousness that we can detect becomes particles, and these particles are also something we postulate.

Seth goes on to say:

Within energy itself, certain innate characteristics...

Energy itself has certain characteristics of energy, many, many of them. In a certain session of The "Unknown" Reality, specifically Session 681 or 682¹, I remember the opening specifically discussed several basic properties of energy. Energy has many properties, for example, it can change from one form to another, it has infinite possibilities, it is not subject to any limitations, and it has its own conservation, and so on.

Seth says:

Since to this day you still cannot regard energy as consciousness... therefore those explanations to you are quite different.

Your interpretation of these characteristics of energy is very narrow. Because you do not believe that energy is alive, that it has consciousness -- humanity does not believe that energy has consciousness, so the understanding of energy's characteristics is limited by this major premise, and many of its properties are misunderstood.

But what is most important? Seth says:

Energy has infinite creativity, inventiveness, remember, and originality.

Energy has these three basic properties. Infinite creativity, inventiveness -- it can invent on its own; does not this inventiveness carry human intent? Only consciousness has inventiveness. And originality -- what it invents, what it embodies, this energy is different from other energy. We humans think that if energy can be divided, if we set it into units, they should all be the same, right? Actually, he tells you, energy has its originality, it is not the same.

Then Seth says:

Energy has imagination. Any scientist reading this book may stop here.

Those materialist scientists, by the time you read this, you probably cannot take it anymore. If you cannot take it, that is fine, just do not read any further, because you cannot accept his viewpoint -- how could energy have imagination? Only living things have imagination. So he says, all right, do not read any further; if you keep reading, you might start flipping tables and cursing, and clearly you do not accept my viewpoint either.

Actually, he is being a bit coy here. The more he says this, the more scientists will keep reading, wanting to see just how far this nonsense can go. What he says afterward is actually all directed at scientists, not at us.

He then says a very important passage:

I am not assigning human characteristics to energy. Quite the contrary.

He is not assigning characteristics unique to humans (such as imagination) to energy -- it is not anthropomorphizing, giving human traits to energy. It is exactly the opposite: those characteristics that we humans currently take pride in, that only humans supposedly have, are precisely the result of the characteristics of energy. Do not get it backwards, do not put the cart before the horse. The fact that you can think today, can walk, jump, leap, and have your own ideas, is precisely because energy itself has these traits. It is not because of your human traits -- the traits behind energy are creativity, originality, imagination, infinite ability and inventiveness, and that is why we humans can invent.

Seth emphasizes again:

In your terms, the space that you consider is filled with invisible particles, which are the unstated portions of physical reality, the unmanifest medium in which your world exists.

According to the understanding of human science, your surroundings are filled with invisible particles. Without the aid of electron microscopes, we cannot see atoms and molecules; our naked eyes cannot see them, but they are everywhere. These invisible particles are the unstated portions of physical reality, the parts that cannot be seen, but they still exist. Scientists observe their existence through experiments and instruments, and then tell us: our world is composed of these unstated portions. The things we cannot touch or feel make up the world that we can now see and touch.

Is this what our ordinary physicists and natural scientists tell us? Yes, indeed it is. Can we see atoms? No. But is our world not all composed of atoms? Yes. So atoms are the transitional zone between the manifest and unmanifest of the physical world. For ordinary people this is so; for scientists, they can observe particles, but not by directly seeing them with the naked eye as you might imagine -- it is by means of detection, and then instruments present the results of that detection.

Seth goes on to say:

In that respect, however, atoms and molecules are manifest.

In what respect? In terms of energy, in terms of consciousness, they are manifest. What does "manifest" mean? It means they have their own definite intent, their own consciousness, their own energy; each individual is clear and distinct, with independent consciousness. Even though the naked eye cannot see them -- instruments aside.

He also says:

The particles that make up atoms and molecules become smaller and smaller, finally escaping all physical instruments, and these particles help bridge the gap between unmanifest and manifest reality.

You discover something especially strange: you say atoms are the smallest, right? There are things smaller than atoms. You say neutrons and protons are smaller than them, right? There are things smaller than them. You say electrons are the smallest, right? There are things smaller than electrons. In the end, scientists are baffled -- there is no smallest, only smaller. This truly fulfills the Buddha's saying: the infinitesimally small has no interior. As long as you find a smallest thing, I can only say that inside it there is something even smaller. No matter what smallest unit you name, I only need to tell you one thing: inside it there must be something smaller than this. You have to admit that, right? Then it is not the smallest.

You say, then the indivisible thing is the smallest -- atoms cannot be further divided, so atoms are the smallest. But what is the atomic bomb doing? Is that not splitting atoms? Atoms can of course be divided. You say, no, that is wrong, atoms can be divided, but protons and neutrons cannot be further divided -- but protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. And what are quarks composed of? Various particles, what are they called, hyperons, gluons, Higgs bosons -- I studied physics many years ago, but those names are too complicated.

Scientists have identified the particles in today's world that cannot be further divided; I recall they found about 13 kinds of elementary particles². Previously atoms were considered elementary particles, but now atoms are far from it -- anything that can be further divided does not count as an elementary particle. These 13 kinds of particles, including bosons and so on, cannot be further divided according to current physics. But from the perspective of quantum mechanics, they do not exist at all -- these 13 elementary particles³ are just different modes of vibration of the string in superstring theory, making you perceive them as if they were different particle forms. If you do not understand this, you can roughly get a popular science introduction to wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics -- particle nature and wave nature, energy nature. We will not explore it too much.

Simply put, between physical reality and nonphysical reality there exist these elementary particles, and you just need to understand that. And in the eyes of scientists, these elementary particles are unutterable -- not just that they cannot be seen, but that they themselves have no meaning, like a pile of the most basic raw materials that make up the physical world. Seth tells you that is wrong: each one of them can be spoken of, each one of them has its own consciousness.

Seth says:

For the purposes of this discussion of the world... I will for now deal only with the known qualities, that is, atoms and molecules.

For the purpose of discussing the origin of our physical universe, let us start from the most basic atoms and molecules; this is simpler, and the nature is the same. Let us for now deal only with these forms of matter that we can recognize.

This chapter is about the beginning of the universe. The previous chapter was about before the beginning of the universe -- do you remember what state that was? It was in a kind of half-dream state, a state of chaos. Had matter formed? It had formed, but it was all chaos, not yet differentiated. What was in the middle? There were dreams, there were entities half-dreaming and half-awake, and the material differentiation like ours had not yet truly formed. In this chapter we begin to talk about after the "beginning."

Seth says:

Atoms and molecules imagined, at the beginning, the myriad forms that were physically possible.

Atoms and molecules thought: what can we form? How can we combine? Let us combine in all kinds of ways. The more than 100 elements⁴ we have now discovered are atoms, and these elements combine with one another to form different molecules -- hydrogen, water, carbon dioxide, oxygen. Everything in our world is formed by these atoms combining with one another.

They imagined the numberless cells that could arise from their own cooperation.

They could imagine the possibility of forming numberless cells from themselves. Atoms form molecules, molecules form proteins, proteins form cells, level by level, and finally cells can form other tissue structures.

Energy was endless, abundant, and they did not know what limitations were.

In such attempts of infinite possibility, is there enough energy? Do not worry, energy is infinite.

In those terms, atoms dreamed cells into physical existence, and that was a new threshold of physical activity. The consciousness of the cells dreamed of the numberless combinations, the complex organizations that emerged from indescribable adventures.

Atoms dreamed out cells -- because their different combinations formed cells; the different combinations of cells formed different biological tissues. Just like that, level by level, from bottom to top, layer by layer, they dreamed it out.

But Seth emphasizes again:

All of this, actually, happened at once.

Although in his description it was dreamed out layer by layer -- from the level of atoms, to cells, to tissues, to organs, to the human body -- all of this seems to have a temporal process. But he tells you: all of this happened at once. Atoms combining into molecules, molecules forming cells, cells forming organs, organs forming the human body -- all of this was not first this and then that; they were all completed simultaneously.

This is what you need to understand. He is afraid you will fall into the trap of evolutionism. Evolutionism does not only refer to Darwin's theory of evolution⁵; it also refers to the Big Bang theory -- the Big Bang theory is also a kind of evolutionism, first the evolution of matter, then the evolution of life, essentially all from simple to complex, from lower to higher, from single-celled to multi-celled, from single atoms to multiple atoms. He is afraid you will say: since that is the case, then were there first atoms and then molecules? No. He tells you that all of this happened simultaneously.

Seth goes on to say:

The depth of psychological experience involved, however, is impossible to measure.

All of this happened simultaneously, but its inner depth is impossible to measure. The fact that we are here today discussing questions, that we study, that we have consciousness, that we have thoughts -- the material structure and foundation behind what allows us to have thoughts is unfathomably deep. It is not as simple as scientists say, as if animals could become this or that through natural evolution. From consciousness to matter, from energy to matter -- under the direction of consciousness, energy transforms its form into matter -- this process happens instantaneously. But within this instantaneous process, the depth of the psychological experience of the process itself is impossible to measure.

Why is it unfathomably deep? He says:

Because this involved a kind of value fulfillment, and every consciousness was involved in it.

What is value fulfillment? Every consciousness wants to realize its own value fulfillment, and there is also an overall value fulfillment. The value fulfillment of an individual consciousness and the overall value fulfillment do not conflict; it is a process of mutual accomplishment. To put it simply: when every cell does its own value fulfillment well, the value fulfillment of the entire human body is perfect. It does not need to know the value fulfillment of the entire human body -- or rather, it is not that it does not need to; it does know it, but we humans think it does not know. It only needs to do itself well, and at the same time, within this larger network of consciousness, it also knows that doing itself well benefits the entire human body. Such an exquisite thing, we call it a value fulfillment system.

So its depth is impossible to measure. This is the most interesting part -- it is not competitive with one another, not harmful to one another, but mutually promoting.

Seth says:

That characteristic of value fulfillment is perhaps the most important ingredient in the existence of All That Is, and it is also a part of the heritage of all species.

Why is this book called Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment? Because value fulfillment is so important; it is one of the most important attributes of All That Is. All That Is also has other attributes, such as spontaneity, which we will get to later.

Seth goes on to say:

Value fulfillment itself is most difficult to describe.

He does not know how to describe it. Why is it difficult? Because:

It combines the nature of a loving presence -- a presence with an innate knowledge of its own divine complexity -- with an infinite creative ability, and this presence seeks to bring value fulfillment to even the most subtle and distant portions of its own reversed complexity.

You probably recognize every word in this passage, but it seems you do not know what he is trying to say. Let us first get clear on this first word -- "presence." Here I think Teacher Wang Jiqing has exhausted his wisdom in translating it, because this thing is indeed hard to translate. He thought about it for a long time and felt that "spirit" was better. Because what are we studying? What we are studying is spiritual knowledge, spiritual practice, so using "spirit" very easily brings us into a kind of feeling and experience.

But is translating this word as "spirit" appropriate? Personally, I think that from the perspective of general body-mind-spirit study, it is appropriate. If you do not use another word, for beginners in body-mind-spirit study, other words are not easy to understand. But if we have studied Seth for so long -- if you have followed along from the first book -- then translating this word this way is not especially accurate.

Then what should the accurate translation of this word be? It should be translated as "presence." Those who have studied spirituality, those who have studied Conversations with God⁶, will understand the meaning of the word "presence." What is presence? To put it simply -- it is that essential thing behind you, expressed through an external thing. It is like how behind each of us there is a consciousness, an energy existence, but what is expressed is the image and thoughts of a person. This expressed thing is actually the presence of our inner spirituality. It is not its true essence, but a form of existence of that essence, an expression, or a manifestation of that essence after interacting with a specific environment under specific conditions.

If you insist on using a very technical word to describe it, it would be better to translate it as "existence." But in English there is a separate word for "existence," and he did not use that word. Why? Because he is not that true existence -- he is the lived-out appearance of that true existence. Suppose All That Is is the essence, then what is this "presence"? It is the appearance of All That Is lived out, the appearance it manifests.

So the meaning of this passage is: an existence of All That Is, remember, this existence is not the existence of its own essence, but the existence that is manifested in the process of realizing value fulfillment. This existence has an innate knowledge of its own divine complexity -- why are humans complex? Because humans are composed of fifty trillion cells⁷, with so many organs, tissues, and systems coordinating and operating together. And this complexity, it knows innately.

But that is still not enough -- he takes this complexity and also endows it with an infinite creative ability, combining this infinite creativity with the essence of this presence. Then, he also seeks to bring value fulfillment to even the most subtle and distant portions of its own reversed complexity. "Reversed" means the very bottom -- reversed layer by layer, from humans to organs, from organs to tissues, from tissues to cells, to atoms, the most subtle of each layer. What is the concept of the most distant? You have a thought, and your thought creates a reality; you have an offshoot, or you have children, and children have children -- the thoughts you create give birth to thoughts, and these are all very distant things.

His meaning is that he not only has his own value fulfillment, but he also takes care of the value fulfillment of every smallest part and every most distant part that composes him. He takes care of the smallest, and he takes care of the largest, from the largest to the smallest, all are taken care of. And each one has creativity, each one has absolute freedom and free will, and yet they can form a whole, forming the value fulfillment of the whole -- this is the most interesting part.

Let us look at the dictionary explanation of the word "presence." It is "attendance," "existence"; the formal meaning is "the place where someone is"; in literature, it is "a felt entity, such as a ghost" -- felt as existing, but is it actually there? It is not there, but you have a felt existence; it also refers to stationed troops, police presence -- how much police force is deployed locally, and this "force" does not refer to a concrete material existence, but a sense of existence of military strength; it also refers to bearing, demeanor, a company's strength in a certain place -- its strength in both the underworld and the legitimate world. It refers to that kind of existence -- an existence of presence, of spirit, of feeling. In online dictionaries it is also explained as "existence," "attendance," "arrival"; in philosophy as "existence," "presence"; in management as "presence."

Let us look at how Yang Liang explains it: presence, the prefix pre- means "in front," and the latter part sense is "existence," together meaning "appearing in front," called attendance, arrival -- that is, you can see him, he is right there at the scene. For example, he says: "He's usually quite polite in my presence" -- when I am at the scene, he is generally very courteous. When you become a father, your son is very well-behaved in front of you, but the moment you are not there, he runs wild; that kind of feeling. Sometimes a person has many sides that you do not see.

In Chinese dictionaries, searching for the word "linzai" corresponds to this word, presence.

Seth himself also felt that the passage above was a bit convoluted, so he said:

Translated into simpler terms, every portion of energy is endowed with an innate creativity, and seeks to fulfill its own potential in all possible variations, and in such a way that such a development also furthers the creative potentials of all other portions of reality.

He rephrased it in a way that might be easier to understand: energy endows every portion of itself with creativity. The human body is an energy body, right? A person, as an entity of existence, endows every part of itself with creativity -- every part, every organ, every small unit.

Then, it seeks to fulfill its own potential through all variations -- all variations means all possibilities, all possible ways of change. Many people ask: why do we have so many counterparts? Why so many reincarnations? Why be both male and female, why be both a king and a beggar? Now you understand why -- because it wants to try all possibilities in order to activate all of your potentials. You have the potential to be a king, the ability to rule the world; you also have the ability to be a beggar, to have nothing and still make a living in this world. You have both. It is just that when you are an emperor, your ability to be a beggar is suppressed.

Historically, there have been a few people who could possess these two capacities in a single lifetime. For example, Zhu Yuanzhang was a beggar when he was young, and in the end he fought to win the empire and became emperor⁸; in this one lifetime he experienced a shift between two extreme roles. But we humans rarely experience such a large shift in one lifetime, so we need many lifetimes to experience different experiences. His purpose lay precisely here—he had to try to fulfill his own potentials in all possible variations. "All possible" does not mean only experiencing those states we consider best. On the level of consciousness, on the level of energy, there is no good or bad; there is only the difference between what has been experienced and what has not been experienced.

This whole passage is explaining value fulfillment: every consciousness, from the largest to the smallest—any small consciousness in the universe—can create itself completely freely and autonomously, has complete creativity, and at the same time they all mutually promote one another in great harmony—this is value fulfillment. It not only promotes itself; because it wants to try all kinds of possibilities, this attempt also promotes the great enrichment of reality and promotes the occurrence of other possibilities. You become emperor, you marry a princess from another country; you become a beggar, you experience what it feels like to be a bachelor—this thing is different.

Seth went on to say:

In those terms, in the beginning there was an almost inconceivable period, during which vibrant consciousness experimented with its own creative ability, its own imagination, and victorious release.

This vibrant consciousness has infinite vitality and infinite creativity. It used imagination to experiment by means of victorious release. Why "victorious"? Because in the dictionary of consciousness, there is no such thing as failure. Each one is a different creation, a different attempt, a different experience; there is only difference in choice and difference in experience, and no one is a failure—each one is a victory. You need to understand this.

This was in the beginning—there was a very boisterous period, every consciousness was very excited, and each one carried a sense of victory while doing its own experiments. They tried one form after another, all possibilities.

In the terms you think of, nothing was stable.

If the consciousness you are thinking of turned into matter, then turned into pure energy, then turned back into matter again, back into energy again, back into consciousness again—the central point is: nothing is stable, it is always changing. This is exactly the essence of the "Yi" in the Chinese classic I Ching⁹. Why is the I Ching regarded as the head of all classics¹⁰? It is because of this word "Yi"—it is always changing. You want stability? Let me tell you, the essence of the universe is instability.

Seth paused again for a while, then said:

Subjectivity still largely remained in charge.

This touches on a very subtle point:

Like a youth leaving home for the first time, individualized consciousness would also be somewhat homesick and would often return to its homeland.

Here it is not "individualized"; the word should be "individual." In this context it should mean "independent"—independent consciousness would also be somewhat homesick and would often return to its homeland. What is its homeland? All That Is. But gradually it gained confidence, and in the end it left to form a universe—to form its own universe, its own reality.

Where did our universe come from? It came from the subjectivity of All That Is. That subjectivity, the sacred subjectivity of All That Is that was described all along before the beginning, was still in charge most of the time. Then a portion of its consciousness began to awaken—the child consciousnesses below, the small consciousnesses, the consciousnesses of descendants and descendants' descendants, each wanting to become independent. But like a youth who has just left home, this independent consciousness was still somewhat homesick; although it had become independent, it still wanted to return to the embrace of All That Is.

You see many children run away from home, but very small children basically come back very soon, because they miss home and miss its warmth. Parents get very anxious and say, you are so young, how dangerous it is to run away from home. But when the child grows up and eventually leaves home, it is no longer running away; he leaves home and does not look back. The parents are also helpless—why? Because he has grown up and has confidence; he can live well away from home, and he wants to create the world and universe that belong to himself.

He used such a vivid analogy to compare this physical universe to a youth leaving home for the first time. At this beginning stage, the youth still often missed home, had not gone far from home, and still existed in dependence on that subjectivity. Slowly he gained confidence and slowly became independent. The physical universe spoken of here includes all the consciousnesses within it—the consciousness of atoms, the consciousness of all things, from the largest to the smallest; each consciousness gained confidence, kept maturing, and finally separated from this subjectivity. Relative to subjectivity, an objective universe was born—a materialized universe.

Seth continued:

Let us say, because All That Is contained within itself such omnipotent, abundant, and sacred creativity, all the parts of its subjective experience acquired dimensions of indescribable certainty.

All That Is has extremely great power and extremely great creativity. Within itself it contains omnipotent, abundant, and sacred creativity. Therefore all the parts of its subjective experience—remember, its subjective experience means its thoughts, ideas, dreams, feelings, experiences—acquired dimensions of indescribable certainty. "Dimension" here means dimensionality.

This thing is very hard to explain. Put it this way: the subjective feelings of All That Is are not the same as our human subjective feelings. Its every thought and idea is pluralistic, multi-dimensional, and multi-leveled. Do you say the thoughts and ideas of All That Is are the same as ours? In some sense they seem the same, but in essence they are not. Its every idea is multi-dimensional, and moreover it attends to every dimension within this multi-dimensionality.

The greatest difference between its every subjective feeling and ours as humans is this: its every subjective feeling spans all dimensions, and is a multi-dimensional thought; moreover, this multi-dimensional thought also ensures that every dimension has definite existence.

Seth gave an example:

For example, the thoughts of All That Is are not just thoughts as we might have; they are supreme, multi-dimensional psychic events.

We have thoughts, and All That Is also has thoughts. But the thoughts of All That Is are different from ours—our thoughts are just thoughts, while its thoughts are supreme. The biggest difference of these thoughts is that each one is a multi-dimensional, multi-level psychic event. In our mind, a thought is just a thought; in All That Is, every thought becomes real and is an event of events—events nested within events, events producing new events, the sum of multiple events across multiple dimensions. Your thought has not yet taken form in the three-dimensional world; its thought is a definite event in all dimensions. Try to understand: one idea of All That Is is a definite event in every dimension, and is a combination of events.

Seth went on:

Those events soon discovered that if they wanted to enter objectivity, they had to undergo a transformation.

These multi-dimensional, multiple-dimension psychic events existing in different dimensions and different phases found that if they wanted to enter objectivity—that is, to enter this kind of material existence, to become independent—they had to transform. Their original form would not work. Why?

Because no objectivity in itself could contain the full content of events existing within sacred subjectivity.

Its own inner psychic world is multi-dimensional. But no matter whether you are in three dimensions, four dimensions, five dimensions—on any single dimension, when you want to turn it into an objective reality, to manifest it and display it, it certainly cannot contain all the contents of its entire multi-dimensional reality; it can only display the portion that can be displayed within that reality. Therefore it has to transform, to become the form it should have in that reality. It cannot display things from every dimension of its multi-dimensionality on this one single dimension—this one dimension can only display the form that this dimension should display. It cannot completely express itself; it can only make a selection.

And only within that range could they be maintained in relative terms.

Only within the range of forms allowed by that range of reality could they be maintained. If they did not do this, even the process of objectification could not be maintained—the materialized image could not be maintained. In four-dimensional and five-dimensional spaces, there are also states in which it exists, and it must also conform to such laws and limitations, just as our three-dimensional world can only exist in material form.

Yet before the beginning, they longed for other experiences, and even for a different kind of value fulfillment.

They longed for a new kind of experience, a different kind of value fulfillment—different from the value fulfillment of All That Is itself. Because they had transformed, a change of form had occurred in the reality where they were, and they had become a new state of existence.

Before the beginning, All That Is was purely a multi-dimensional psychic existence; it could not fully display things from every dimension of its multi-dimensionality on a single dimension. It had to transform, had to make a selection; only within the range allowed by that reality could it be relatively maintained—otherwise even the process of objectification could not be maintained.

Yet before the beginning, they longed for other experiences, and even for a different kind of value fulfillment.

What does "different kind" refer to here? It refers to being different from the value fulfillment of All That Is itself. Because it has transformed, a change of form has occurred in the reality where it is, and it has become a new state of existence. Once it reaches this dimension, it can only use the value fulfillment of this dimension to form the value fulfillment of its own transformed subjectivity. Is this value fulfillment the same as the original multi-dimensional value fulfillment of All That Is? No.

The Sacred Perplexity of All That Is

I will give you an example. Every one of us is a part of All That Is, right? We have come into the three-dimensional world, so every person has their own life meaning, life mission, and goal. Is this life mission and goal the same as that goal of All That Is? Not the same. You could say it is the same, because it is also a part of All That Is, but in essence, in nature, the two are not the same. But is there conflict? No conflict.

This is what he wants to tell you: they felt that, in their dimension, they had a value fulfillment to accomplish. Because this driving force comes from that most primordial attribute of All That Is, the attribute of value fulfillment. Did we not say earlier? Value fulfillment is All That Is's most important attribute, and it is passed down through all species. So no matter in which dimension, each is a manifestation of All That Is in that dimension, and this manifestation has the value fulfillment it wants to realize in that dimension.

This is why we human beings are always seeking the meaning of our existence. When we still understood nothing, when we were very young, we would ponder this question; some people early, some people late, but sooner or later you will ponder: Who am I? What did I come here to do? What do I want to do? Because you will feel a kind of value fulfillment.

Then, they ask to apply their own creative ability, using the creative ability they possess only in that dimension, to realize the value fulfillment they want to realize in that dimension. They long to create, just as they themselves were created.

And All That Is, in a kind of sacred perplexity, realizes: this has always been its own intention.

"Sacred perplexity" -- this is Seth's language. What it means is: every consciousness entity existing in different realities and different dimensions wants to develop its own creative ability in that reality, to realize its own creation, just as it itself was created. Because creation is All That Is's inherent attribute; value fulfillment and creativity are both its inherent attributes.

And at this time, All That Is has a kind of sacred perplexity. Why is it perplexed? Because these consciousnesses in different reality spaces and different dimensions, their creation in that dimension is not the same as All That Is's own creation. The essence is the same; they possess its attributes, but that does not mean the two are equal.

At this time, these consciousness entities are not All That Is itself, but a line of sight of All That Is in a certain reality, a manifestation, or to use the earlier term "presence" -- you can imagine it as a kind of avatar. Those avatars of All That Is in different dimensions, each one wants to create again, just as they themselves were created. But at this time, All That Is is a bit perplexed: your creation on your level is not my value fulfillment; you are only a part of my value fulfillment.

It is a bit baffled: do I let them create or not? These "half-skilled ones," these apprentice gods, these avatars do not possess the same abilities as I do. Although they have the same nature and attributes as I do, their creation in their dimension is limited, incomplete, and not ultimate. So do I let them create, or not? In other words, can their creation represent me? Is it what my -- All That Is's -- value fulfillment wants or needs?

The Awakening of All That Is

At this point, All That Is very wisely realized one more thing: all of this had always been its own intention. This was the greatest shift, the most fundamental shift.

This shift is a bit like letting go and allowing your child to do what he loves to do. Those of us who are parents have all had this experience -- one day your child suddenly tells you what he wants to do, and then you feel it is not appropriate, it is not good, your life should go this way, I have already planned it all out for you, this is the optimal choice. But your child simply will not listen to you. At that moment you think: is my child's ideal, my child's goal, my child's value fulfillment, mine? I wanted him to become a lawyer, how did he end up becoming a singer?

All That Is had this very mindset: will you allow him to be a singer? Even though you wanted him to be a lawyer. All That Is finally had the wise realization -- his going off to be a singer is also its own intention, also a part of its own value fulfillment, only it had not realized it before.

The change lies right here: All That Is allowed these "amateurs" to begin creating this world, allowed all of its descendants, all of the consciousness of everything, to have their own right to create and their own ability to create. Although they only possessed a portion of All That Is's abilities, All That Is still discovered: even so, each one of their creations was a part of its overall value fulfillment, and was also where its own intention lay, meaning it wanted it this way.

This is a tremendous change. What kind of change? Not persuading itself by saying, "Oh well, if he wants it that way, let him go, I cannot control him anyway" -- not that mindset. Rather, it discovered: oh, so the child wanting to be a singer is also one of my intentions. Why? Because my intention is to let him try all possibilities, develop all potential, and make him happy. He is very happy and joyful being a singer, and he has developed potential I had never thought of before. Do you understand the difference here? It is not compromise, not helplessness; it is its joyful recognition that this is also my intention. In this way, does it not become aligned with the child? Would it not then support the child with all its strength? Just as All That Is now supports the creations of all of us with all its strength, we have always been protected and blessed.

Allowing Separation Is What Brings Existence Into Being

All That Is understood: such separation is also permitted — you can produce a different kind of spiritual art, in which the creator itself creates, and their creations also create, bringing into existence off-center versions of All That Is.

What does "separation" mean? It means that the value fulfillment of these conscious beings existing in different dimensions is different from, and separate from, the value fulfillment of the multidimensional spiritual events of All That Is as a whole. Because the value fulfillment of All That Is is a holistic event in a multidimensional space, taking care of every aspect of all dimensions; whereas the value fulfillment of a being existing in a single dimension has no way of attending to that many levels, because it is not even aware of the existence of those levels — how could it attend to them?

And what is magical is that All That Is permitted the existence of this kind of value fulfillment that is different in nature from its own. Each being creates only within its own limited dimension, and this is a "different kind of spiritual art" — not like All That Is creating across all dimensions.

The phrase "off-center," in the original English, means "not round" — a circle that is not round, not an ellipse either, just not round. It can also be understood as "eccentric," "strange," "unconventional," "unusual," "very odd." That is, something different from, deviating from, the essential thing.

So at this stage, this is one of the greatest changes, the greatest transformations, of All That Is: from its own purely spiritual multidimensional creation, it permitted the independent value-fulfillment creation of each individual level, and this independent creation could also be manifested within their realities, brought into existence. Only in this way could the birth of our physical universe come about.

In a certain sense, without this separation, All That Is would have no way of making anything.

Why? Is it really impossible without separation? Yes, it is impossible. Because All That Is itself is a multidimensional existence, and its content is simply too much. If you insist on having a holistic thing, then there is none — trying to present the entirety of the subjective content of All That Is in an objective manner is impossible. It can only present itself in a deviating way, expressing itself layer by layer.

Suppose All That Is is an elephant. In the three-dimensional world, it is a leg, a pillar; in the four-dimensional world, it is the trunk; in the five-dimensional world, it is the big flapping ear; in the six-dimensional world, it is a rope-like tail. In the three-dimensional world it is just a leg, a leg as thick as an elephant's — this is the line of sight, the presence, of All That Is in the three-dimensional world. This leg has its own creativity, its own leg-like flexibility, and it must realize the value fulfillment of an elephant's leg.

You say: I don't want this, this is not the complete All That Is, I want the complete one. The fourth dimension says I don't want the trunk, the fifth dimension says I don't want the ear, the sixth dimension says I don't want the tail — each layer wants its own wholeness. But All That Is says: I cannot do that. I am a multidimensional existence, and you are asking me to display my wholeness in every layer — I cannot display it. The capacity and carrying ability of your dimension are insufficient to carry a multidimensional existence like me. I can only display what your dimension is capable of displaying. You say I don't want this substitute, give me the real All That Is — well then, there is nothing at all.

Do you understand what this means? So the final and greatest realization of All That Is is this: if it does not permit these deviations to arise, if it does not permit these creations that cannot fully represent it to go on creating their worlds according to their own understanding, then it cannot create anything at all. It can only permit.

The Intent of All That Is

To the subtlest possible consciousness and emergence, to give loving protection and loving encouragement -- that is the intent of All That Is.

If you ask what the intent of All That Is is, it has already said: to the smallest consciousness, the smallest emergence -- that is, expressing itself, manifesting itself -- give loving protection and encouragement. It simply wants every consciousness to live out itself; this is its greatest wish. At this point you will find that it no longer cares about that multidimensional, multi-incarnational value fulfillment of its own existence within divine subjectivity. It has already realized: every tiniest consciousness's emergence, manifestation, and creation is part of the holistic value fulfillment.

Remember this point; this is a key point. As our ancestors said: when water is too clear, there are no fish. If it did not have this idea of letting every thought, every consciousness emerge, there would be no universe of ours, no world of ours. In Buddhist terms, it would have remained in a state of suchness, unmoving, without any change.

All That Is knows that even this purpose is part of a larger purpose.

What purpose? The protection and encouragement of all the smaller consciousnesses. To say this is a purpose, this purpose is also part of a larger purpose -- meaning the purpose does not stop here. In terms of time, the realization of that larger purpose will cause another extremely important subjective inspiration to burst into objectivity, or burst into another form.

This part is a bit profound. In terms of there being a sequential order in time, the realization of that protection and encouragement of all the smaller consciousnesses will lead to what result? It will cause another extremely important subjective inspiration to burst into objectivity.

The Alteration of Subjectivity

Let me explain a bit more, because this part is easy to misunderstand. Why does All That Is divide things into "before the beginning" and "after the beginning"? Because these two stages are not the same. Before the beginning, All That Is conceived everything perfectly. Within its divine subjectivity, it conceived all these multidimensionalities perfectly, but without manifestation — only in imagination, in its dream state.

But when manifestation began, when it began to actualize, when it began to allow every consciousness to realize itself, to create itself, and then to create further within the creations of creation, it discovered that this had already deviated from its original intent. The reason for the deviation is this: the rich, multi-layered, multidimensional nature of that divine subjectivity is not sufficient to express itself completely within a single dimension, or within limited dimensions.

So either you allow it to create in this "half-baked," deviant way, or you do not allow it to create at all — otherwise it simply cannot create. And in the final analysis, it is allowed to create. The result of creation is that these creations have already deviated from the value fulfillment that All That Is originally intended; they have already changed from the very beginning. Previously, that subjectivity was a divine subjectivity, and its thoughts and ideas were all "supreme, supreme" thoughts — by "supreme" I mean that they are not something we humans can understand or feel; they are different from our human thoughts and ideas.

All That Is originally wanted to develop downward according to its own supreme nature, but when it began to create, it found that this would not work — this supreme nature could not be created; it could only become finite. So should the finite be created? Yes, it should, because if the finite is not created, then this infinite existence would not exist.

All That Is is the sum of all consciousness, all creations of consciousness, and all processes of creation. And from before the beginning up to the present process of the universe's creation, you will find that it has already changed: before the beginning, the creative subject was multidimensional, and every consciousness within it, every consciousness that composes All That Is, was a multidimensional existence, and their creation and value fulfillment were all accomplished within multiple dimensions. But when it came to the concrete process of manifestation or materialization — when we materialized into the three-dimensional world — it would not work. You cannot manifest a multidimensional thing in the three-dimensional world; you can only manifest its materialized aspect.

And these material bodies that exist in the three-dimensional world have their own consciousness, their own creation, their own free will within the three-dimensional reality, and they are also creating their own things. Such creation is clearly different from that multidimensional creation. At this point, the inner nature of All That Is has already changed — its consciousness is no longer entirely multidimensional consciousness; it has become many, many three-dimensional consciousnesses. These three-dimensional consciousnesses then form a new subjective inspiration, one that is already different from before, hence "another."

And everything belongs to All That Is, so this language is actually very limited. At this point, there will be another extremely important subjective inspiration that bursts into objectivity — it explodes within objectivity, manifests instantaneously, or is exposed into another form. "Bursts into" means that through the explosion of inspiration, it enters our material world, appearing out of nowhere.

The Universe Is Dreaming It

However, in a deeper sense, from a higher perspective, that purpose is now also known, and the entire universe is, to some extent, dreaming it.

That new purpose, that larger purpose—the one different from All That Is's original purpose and that has now become this new purpose—also knows that it is not a strange child, not a freak. Although it differs from the original multidimensional divine subject of All That Is, this kind of purpose is also something the universe wanted to form. That is to say, the universe is also dreaming it, and it is also part of what the universe wants to form.

This tells you: do not think that we have deviated from All That Is and that there is such a separation. This separation is something it allowed. That kind of experience based on the physical world, that kind of spiritual art, is different from All That Is's kind of multidimensional spiritual experience, but All That Is allowed this experience, and it tells you: this kind of experience based on the physical world is also part of the universe, and also part of the universe's dream.

Why did he use "to some extent"? Because this physical universe's experience occupies only a very small part of the experience of the entire universe, but that does not mean it is not part of the existence of the universe. Using "to some extent" actually hints that besides this physical universe, there are many, many other universes that are also dreamed by the universe.

Just as once molecular consciousness dreamed that it might form organs.

Molecules have molecular consciousness, and molecular consciousness dreams that it may form organs. Molecules form organs, and this organ is dreamed out within the dream of molecular consciousness—through its various arrangements and combinations, through attempts at various possibilities, it finally formed this organ. He uses this idea as an analogy for the formation of our physical universe, which is also one part of the dream of the whole universe.

He said:

I want to emphasize that what I am saying here is not about a spiritual evolution, but an expansion.

He is afraid you will misunderstand: by experiencing this physical universe today, you are not evolving into a higher-level experience. No. This is an expansion. It is like going around this city today and going around another city tomorrow; between them there is no higher or lower, only going to different cities to experience different feelings.

However, let us for now limit the discussion to the consciousness at the beginning of the world.

We should not go too far yet; we will only discuss what the consciousness of this world was like at the very beginning of the world. He sometimes uses the analogy of a teenager running away from home, and sometimes uses the analogy from multidimensional consciousness to single-dimensional consciousness, giving examples layer by layer, to let you understand and feel the overall state of consciousness when the universe was first born.

Dreaming and the Network of Conscious Communication

What he emphasizes is this: the first foundation of physical life is largely subjective. And the dreaming condition not only helped form your human consciousness, but, in those terms, it serves to provide the person with a stable source of information about his or her physical environment, and acts as an inner communications network among all the various species.

At the beginning of the world, what was the state of consciousness of this physical universe? It was subjective, largely subjective -- subjectivity was still largely in charge, but objective things had already begun to emerge. Then he shifts his focus and talks about the dreaming condition: our human consciousness was formed in dreams, and dreams also serve to provide our physical environment with an unending source of information -- among the various species, a network of consciousness forms an inner communications network, constantly exchanging information. Which information can you obtain? You can obtain it through dreams.

Seth's Dictation Ends

This part of the dictation came to an end. Seth told Rob: "You must remind me to discuss how those subjective entities learn to transfer themselves into physical individuals." He said, next time, do not forget to remind him: the process by which these subjective entities transfer themselves into materialized individuals. Seth is so wise, yet he is also afraid of forgetting, and he asked Rob to remind him to ask about this matter -- because this content is simply too vast.

Seth said: "Dictation is over, the session is over, and I heartily wish you a good evening." Then he added another passage: "I appreciate your little room -- the one where the real writing happens -- its special quality of comfort. Nestled in the house on the hillside, snuggled in a material nest, within this particular street and this small town, tucked away here. Especially when we discuss such complex subjects, the subject seems rather vast."

Yes, Seth once again expressed a feeling: this little room is very comfortable; within this materialized world, these materialized streets and this materialized small town, we hide away in such a little room to discuss such complex and vast questions about the origin of the universe. But he said: "It is precisely about how you are able to perceive this particular kind of evening." You see, Seth was also expressing emotion through the scenery; he is very good at that. He said good night several times, yet he did not leave.

Note 1: On Elements and Particles

In here he made a note about the atom. Sixteen years ago -- in Session 19 of the Seth material -- Seth already said something like this. Many people ask: the Seth material now has over 800 sessions, so why haven't we heard about those earlier sessions? I already said in Seth Speaks: the Seth material starts from Session 1, but Sessions 1 through 510 are all early session content. Seth Speaks begins with Session 510, so everything we have been interpreting starts from Session 511 of Seth Speaks, moving forward gradually, all the way to the present, already past Session 800. Every session has a number, and we cannot help but admire and thank Rob for his rigor and meticulousness -- every session has a number, a date, a time, and is summarized by category.

Sixteen years ago, in Session 19 of the Seth material, when the Seth material was just beginning to be transmitted, Seth already said this:

Your scientists can count their elements, that is, the hundred or so elements, meaning that they will create and discover more and more elements until they nearly go mad. Because they will forever be creating camouflages of real -- that is, nonphysical -- things. And as they create instruments to handle smaller and smaller particles, they will in fact see seemingly endless, ever smaller particles.

What he means is: when scientists in the early days wanted to study the universe, using the instruments they invented to explore the smallest matter in the universe, you will find there is no end -- because you will always find those camouflaged things appearing, meaning you will always discover smaller particles. These ever smaller particles are all camouflages of matter, while inside them is that real nonphysical thing. But you cannot see these real things, and you only want to explore these camouflaged materialized things, so you will forever only be able to search smaller and smaller.

The more advanced your instruments, the smaller the particles you can discover; the even more advanced your instruments, the even smaller and smaller particles you discover, without end. Why? Because this camouflage is endless. In other words: however high the demon rises, the Way rises one foot higher. If you invent a microscope that can see at the scale of 10 to the negative 16th power meters, then you will be able to see the materialized camouflage manifestation at that scale; if you invent a microscope at 10 to the negative 20th power, then you will be able to see, at the scale of 10 to the negative 20th power, a camouflaged particle materialized from nonphysical energy, shown to you. It is endless -- however small your microscope can see, that is how small the particle can manifest itself to be.

Then:

As your instruments probe further and further into the universe, they will see further and further things.

The universe currently observable by humanity is very, very small, but the universe inferred by human theory is very large. It is roughly 93 billion light-years¹¹ -- I think that is the number, I cannot remember clearly, you can go look it up.

Many people ask a strange question: the universe was only born 13.7 billion years ago¹², and if the speed of light is the fastest speed in this universe, then from the birth of the universe, assuming it rushed outward at the speed of light, the farthest, farthest place from the universe by now would at most be only 13.7 billion light-years, right? The radius of the universe, 13.7 billion times two, the diameter should be a little over 26 billion light-years. Why is the diameter of the universe that we humans now infer 93 billion, and not a little over 20 billion?

Scientists will tell you: the universe is expanding, so it keeps getting bigger and bigger. To put it simply, scientists will propose a set of theoretical systems that are highly self-consistent within the scope of their theories, but all those theories have certain premises, and those premises do not hold up under scrutiny.

But Seth says:

You automatically transform what they apparently see into the familiar camouflaged patterns. They will be prisoners of their own tools.

You look out into the universe, and it is endless. The universe is very far, but you will convert it into the camouflaged patterns you can understand. The largest and smallest universe you can see depends on the capability of our instruments -- to whatever extent the instruments can be invented, that is the extent of your field of vision, whether from the largest or the smallest.

Instruments specially designed to measure the vibrations with which science is familiar will be redesigned time and time again, and finally those instruments will discover all sorts of seemingly invisible phenomena, until the scientists realize that those things are utterly wrong.

I am not entirely sure which "instruments for measuring vibrations" he is referring to, but what he wants to tell you is this: scientists will eventually discover some things that cannot be explained, some impossible phenomena. Why? Because those instruments were prepared to capture a certain kind of camouflage. The physical world is camouflage, and you use an instrument of the physical world to explore the camouflage of the physical world, using one camouflage to discover another camouflage -- can you discover it? You cannot.

And since they were so cleverly thought out, they will perform their function.

"Cleverly thought out" refers to the instruments being precisely designed. What it means is: whatever your instruments can detect is just as the people who invented those instruments imagined -- they will definitely see that thing. Because the instrument was designed and imagined by you in that way, and when you designed it you already anticipated what you wanted to see, and as a result you will be able to see that thing. Is this a little deep? Think about it carefully, and after thinking it over a couple more times you will be able to figure it out.

I do not want to get too deeply involved, but those instruments themselves have their own way of translating data that you do not understand into terms that you can understand.

Scientists have always been doing this. He does not want to say too much, but he says: your scientists have always been turning the data they do not understand into things that seem as if you understand them, giving them a grand and dignified reason and theory -- saying that it is like this, that it fits this theory, that it fits that theory. In fact, these things have already gone beyond the cognition of scientists, and can no longer be explained, yet they insist on forcing an explanation. Why? Because if they do not explain it this way, the entire edifice of their theoretical foundation will collapse. This involves the livelihoods of countless people, and also involves the beliefs of countless people.

This is somewhat like the emperor's new clothes. Although we all know the emperor is not wearing new clothes, no one dares to puncture it -- once punctured, it is no longer just the emperor's concern, but the concern of all humanity. Scientists are camouflaging, and we also believe they are camouflaging. We calmly accept this fact because we do not want to strip ourselves bare and tell ourselves that we are ignorant, childish, foolish people. We want to present ourselves as wise, intelligent, rational, and logical.

If scientists tell us: we humans are very smart, then we would rather believe it. If scientists tell us: we humans have gone the wrong way, all our cognition is wrong and inverted, and we are fools -- let alone scientists being unable to get past that hurdle, even we ordinary people cannot get past that hurdle. So scientists are fooling you, and you are willing to be fooled by them. That is how everyone is: scientists are very smart, and they have invented something again; scientists themselves know in their hearts that they cannot explain this thing at all, but they still rack their brains to come up with a theory to explain it through, and even though they also know it is complete nonsense, they still have to say it, because this is what they do and this is how they make a living. Ordinary people say: look at how reasonable the scientists' explanation is -- because they understand even less, and they are afraid others will say they do not understand.

If you dare to challenge scientists, others will think you are a fool, that you are utterly stupid -- there is a term often used nowadays: when someone cannot win an argument with you, they say you are anti-intellectual. This world is just that subtle; we are collectively maintaining a story of the emperor's new clothes.

He also mentioned one more thing: regarding this matter, see Session 682 in Volume 1 of The "Unknown" Reality. Sessions 681, 682, and 683 of The "Unknown" Reality are all extremely important, and are suitable for repeated understanding and reading. When there are many things about this world that you do not understand, you can go listen to them carefully.

Commentary 2: On "Eccentricity"

I especially like Jane's use of the word "off-center" when she talks about how "any portion of consciousness can create its own new version." She looked up the meaning of this word in the dictionary -- she studied English, and even she had to look it up. The word means unusual, strange, unconventional, not following the crowd, not sticking to convention.

Jane then added her own original interpretation. In October 1974, after she consciously experienced the "library of the psyche" for the first time, she began to speak of the "off-centeredness of consciousness." And in a subsequent transcendent experience -- a kind of extrasensory experience -- she suddenly began to see every part of the world around her. She opened her inner senses, for example seeing the "great model" of every person, every house, every blade of grass, every bird -- that is, Jane suddenly saw the energy essence beneath our physical camouflage, the energy body of the universe. She used the term "great model," and you can understand it through the concept of pattern -- it is your original appearance, the way you were originally meant to be.

Jane said:

Our ordinary world, by comparison, suddenly seemed quite shabby.

Our world, so richly complex and so dazzlingly strange, seemed very shabby indeed when compared with that great model -- the model of every person, every blade of grass, every house. That world was far more magnificent and grand.

Then Jane wrote:

Each person is that archetype, yet each person is also that wonderful eccentric.

"Wonderful eccentric" is the same word as "off-center." The English word is Eccentric -- centric means the center of a circle, the central point, so this means off-center, not round. She said: each person is that wonderful eccentric. She went on:

Not only because we each have our own inner models, but also because we have the freedom to deviate from them, and it is this that makes the model come alive and become creative.

The Essence Does Not Change, but the Outer Expression Can Deviate

Regarding the understanding of this word, Jane gave her own interpretation, and this is a very important point. If you do not understand this point, then you cannot properly understand the earlier process of the birth of this universe -- how All That Is allowed its deviations to come into being.

What does "deviation" mean? Your essence has not changed, your inner being has not changed, but what you express outwardly is different. Just like each of us -- inwardly we are all a higher entity, a higher spirituality, a higher consciousness -- but what we manifest in this three-dimensional world is the human form, human attributes.

Jane said she could see that thing which is each person's essence -- that typical part, that most original part, which is your core, your essence, which is also what Buddhism calls the "original nature," that "self-nature which is inherently complete," the "dharma nature." Jane said: I see that thing, but each person is not that thing; each person is a variation of that thing, a strange expression of it -- a strange expression of that original, authentic thing. She found it especially laughable, especially odd, especially interesting -- these strange people.

In this kind of extrasensory experience, Jane connected with the inner self, opened the inner senses, and came to realize another thing: if you do not allow these strange people to appear, if you do not allow this to happen -- "the essence remains unchanged, but outwardly it changes into all kinds of images, all kinds of possible forms" -- then this model of yours is a rigid thing, a mannequin-like thing, something dead, without creativity.

Let us put it in a simple way: each of us has a nature that is inherently complete; each of us is a being of dharma nature, of true suchness. But if we did not have these strange, laughable behaviors and mannerisms as beings in the three-dimensional world, then our dharma nature, our true suchness, would lose its vitality and could not come alive.

The essence of All That Is has infinite creativity, right? Its infinite creativity, in this world of ours, in this dimension, has created all kinds of strange outward appearances of people like us, and only then do we have the myriad phenomena of this world. If you do not allow this to happen, and say, "You must all return to the state of your inherently complete Buddha-nature, and everyone should live like a Buddha" -- then this world, this physical world, would have no creativity, and could not come alive.

Therefore, each of us has an inner core; you cannot lose it, and you need not worry about it. On the premise that this inner core exists, you can go all out in creating, go all out in experiencing; there is no right or wrong, no good or bad -- this is what you should be doing.

If you do not do this, then that is actually what is wrong. You say, "I will withdraw, return to that dharma nature, to that true suchness, return to the self-nature that is inherently complete, and then I will do nothing" -- is that right? No, it is not. This is the dilemma. This is the question many people ask: I am already inherently complete, so what is there left to do? What meaning is there in doing anything? I am already complete in every aspect -- material, spiritual, wisdom -- so what should I do? What is the meaning of what I do?

Have many people asked this question? Being inherently complete refers to your essence and your original nature; that is not wrong. But you must live it out, experience it, feel it -- in this dimension of yours, in this world of yours -- rather than saying, "I understand it, so I will do nothing."

In her extrasensory experience, Jane gave a very good interpretation and summary. This is also where that earlier passage about All That Is's "sacred dilemma" lies: it discovered that these creations of its own had begun to create their own creations, and it felt something was not quite right, because they had not reached that sacred multi-dimensional state that it itself possessed. But if you do not allow them to create, then they cannot do it either -- they cannot, within their own dimension, express multi-dimensional creation. So what then? Just stop creating?

But in the end it discovered that this was not actually the case. It is precisely this kind of creation that deviates from the essence that gives rise to infinite possibilities. Without this kind of creation that deviates from the original mind, there would be no multitude of possible -- of subsequent probable realities, probable developments -- and this universe would become utterly lifeless. That is not what All That Is wanted. It discovered that these bustling, seemingly chaotic creations were exactly what it wanted. Because its original mind will not change, its core will not change, its inner essence will not change; the things you create outwardly are all for experiencing, for creating, for enriching it, for perfecting it -- all of it, in satisfying the state of each individual conscious self, completes the value fulfillment of the whole -- even though you, standing only in your own dimension, complete your own value fulfillment.

All right, regarding the interpretation of this part, we will stop here for today.

注释与核实

1. This claim could not be verified. ↩

2. According to Mike's original words, it was "roughly identified 13 kinds of elementary particles"; upon verification, it should be "the Standard Model of particle physics contains 17 different elementary particles, not about 13." (Source: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, "Searching for Particles Beyond the Standard Model," 2023, https://www.energy.gov/science/articles/searching-particles-beyond-standard-model) ↩

3. According to Mike's original words, it was "13 kinds of elementary particles"; upon verification, it should be "the Standard Model of particle physics contains 17 different elementary particles, not 13." (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, "Searching for Particles Beyond the Standard Model," https://www.energy.gov/science/articles/searching-particles-beyond-standard-model) ↩

4. Source: International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, "IUPAC Announces the Names of the Elements 113, 115, 117, and 118," 2016 (https://iupac.org/iupac-announces-the-names-of-the-elements-113-115-117-and-118/) ↩

5. Source: Wikipedia, "On the Origin of Species" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species) ↩

6. This claim could not be verified. ↩

7. Source: Anthony T. Annunziato, "DNA Packaging: Nucleosomes and Chromatin" (https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-packaging-nucleosomes-and-chromatin-310/?code=b5045633-9251-46b5-b1da-87cbe5e0cfaa&error=cookies_not_supported) ↩

8. Source: Guangming Daily, "Strict in Governing Officials, Generous in Treating the People—Zhu Yuanzhang's Way of Governance" (https://news.nankai.edu.cn/rwsd/system/2007/04/29/000006356.shtml) ↩

9. Source: Shen Heyong and Gao Lan, "The I Ching and Chinese Cultural Psychology," 2000 (https://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2000/V32/I3/348) ↩

10. Source: ShanghaiTech University Center for General Education, "The Zhouyi and Culture," 2018 (https://ih.shanghaitech.edu.cn/ih_en/2018/0529/c11434a1028860/page.htm) ↩

11. Source: European Space Agency, "The Universe" (https://www.esa.int/kids/en/learn/Our_Universe/Story_of_the_Universe/The_Universe) ↩

12. Source: NASA, "Then vs. Now: The Age of the Universe" (https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/featured_science/tenyear/age.html) ↩