Mike's commentary · Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Session 907

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

Introduction

Seth opens Chapter 6, moving from genetic inheritance to free will and determinism. He points out that the reasoning mind is the result of mental activity under the constraints of space and time; it is necessary precisely because direct knowledge is lacking, yet it is also the source of human civilization's achievements. He explains that genes largely determine the conditions of existence, and free will must operate within genetic integrity; genetic information interacts with personal experience and is not unchangeable. The reincarnational psyche's inventory triggers genetic combinations, and the actor-and-role metaphor illustrates the relationship between the self in time and the larger self. Other species also possess emotions, morality, and art, sharing an emotional reality.

Key Points of This Chapter

• The reasoning mind is the result of mental or psychic activity operating under the limitations of time and space. Reasoning is needed only because the answer is not immediately present, yet it remains the source of humanity's achievements in civilization, science, and art.
• Genes largely determine the conditions of existence and physical characteristics. Free will can only operate within the range of genetic integrity. Genetic information interacts with personal experience, and no genetic event is inevitable.
• In addition to bodily genes, the reincarnational psychic storehouse provides characteristics, tendencies, and abilities, and it triggers certain genes or ignores others, so that abilities can appear independent of family background.
• The self in time adopts the reasoning mind as its creative psychological face, using it to locate itself in time and space and to experience life, but for this very reason it cannot see into the past, the future, or other consciousnesses.
• Animals have their own morality, art, and science, and they perceive biological and psychic values in a non-reasoning way. All species participate in emotional reality.

Main Text

Session Record and Chapter Six

This session began on Monday, April 14, 1980, at 8:47 p.m.¹ Rob came in saying he could hardly believe that five and a half weeks had passed since the last regular session, Session 906 on March 6², during which time Seth had not held class at all. In that period, only one private session was held, on April 9³.

In organizing the Seth material, most of my decisions were about what to set aside and what not to include. That is, I chose what I wanted and what to leave out.

Because Seth covered so much material. Regarding the April 9 session, Rob said he also felt a sense of limitation, because in it Seth talked about artistic creation. Rob hesitated over whether to put it in this book, because that session dealt with artistic creation not only by us humans, but also by other beings on Earth—for example, flowers also engage in artistic creation. Rob still included this material in the notes of this book, that is, part of the content of the April 9 private session.

Although Jane had been enjoying many periods of relaxation, she also had bouts of melancholy brought on by the stiffness throughout her body and the difficulty in walking. Difficulty walking and stiffness throughout the body—these were Jane's symptoms at the time. She had finally shaken off the last stages of a cold, and felt an impulse to hold a session. Her own writing had also been going quite well. Today Jane reread the last few sessions of this book, and she wanted to resume work on the book tonight. All day she had been receiving material from Seth, and occasionally she told Rob bits of information, but Rob did not remember them.

Jane called Rob to class at 8:20, saying, "I still feel nervous about getting back to the book." When she gave the first sentence of Chapter Six, Rob immediately remembered what she had told him that afternoon—that this was the way Seth would begin such a session. Then Seth came through, said good evening in a whisper, and went directly into the theme of the session. He said, "Chapter Six."

Because they had stopped classes for five and a half weeks, Seth went straight into the subject. The content of this session is extremely critical, touching on questions that puzzle and concern many people.

Any true discussion of genetic inheritance is bound to raise questions involving free will and determinism, and to some extent those issues will also lead to questions concerning the nature of the reasoning mind itself.

This statement by Seth seems very simple, but it is exactly the question he wanted to discuss in this session. We discuss genes because the theme of this chapter is the issue of genes and heredity. When we talk about heredity and genes, it is bound to raise this question: since genes determine all of this, do we still have free will? These are two seemingly paradoxical things. If genes are acting upon our heredity, then where is free will? Or, can free will only operate within a limited range? And our discussion of this question is necessarily based on our logical reasoning, on ethical and moral reasoning, or on a kind of philosophical speculation grounded in sociology and the humanities. And all of this is bound to raise the question of where the reasoning mind itself comes from—where does this human reasoning mind ultimately come from? Why do we humans think about such questions? Do we actually have free will? Or are we determined by genes?

The Nature of the Reasoning Mind

Reasoning as you are familiar with it, that is, what we ordinarily call reasoning, operates within the framework of space and time, and is a result of a mental or psychic process that functions in a specific way.

Our so-called reasoning must operate within the framework of space and time; this must be emphasized. What we call logic, what we call reasoning, what we call our rational knowledge, must all operate within the framework of space and time. Without space and time, we would have no basis for reasoning, and this is a very interesting point. And what we call a "specific way" is already specific to the framework of space and time. Your own mental and psychic processes do not require the limitations of space and time. But when you insist on placing them within the framework of space and time, under such specific conditions, the result of your mental and psychic processes--whether psychic processes or mental processes--makes you feel as though it were reasoning.

That is to say, your mental activities and psychological activities do not require the limitations of space and time, but under the limitations of space and time you perceive the result of these mental activities and psychological activities, and then you identify it as reasoning. The result of mental and psychological activities within the framework of space and time is what you perceive as the human reasoning mind. That is how it comes about. Without the framework of space and time, for example, all those chaotic things in dreams, you feel that dreams have no logic, so you think they have none. In dreams you do not need to reason, and dreams are not something you reason out.

And to a certain degree, reasoning is the result of the greatest lack of available knowledge.

If we extend the above idea further, or push it to its extreme, if we use our reasoning mind to push it to its extreme, then reasoning as we ordinarily understand it--that is, logic--is the result of the greatest lack of available knowledge. What does this mean? It means that the things we consider logical and rational exist under one premise, namely the premise of the space-time framework. They are not an essential, broad result of mental activity and psychic activity; they are only a result of mental activity and psychic activity under specific limitations. We select only this portion, we identify this portion as conforming to our cognition, and we consider these things to be reasonable and valid. And those mental activities and psychological activities that do not conform to the space-time framework, we simply ignore them, because we feel they do not conform to our reasoning. In this session, Seth actually wants to tell you how the human reasoning mind came about, and how we should correctly regard our reasoning mind.

Because the answer is not in front of you, you try to reason it out.

Since you speak of reasoning, since humans claim to have a reasoning mind and this capacity for logical analysis, then clearly what is the case? Clearly you do not know the answer, so you need to reason. If you knew the answer, would you still need to reason? The example I often give, of what it means that the answer is right in front of you so no reasoning is needed: every mother, when she gives birth to her own child, never thinks of trying to reason out whether the child is hers. There is no need to reason; she simply knows. But every father needs some simple reasoning, for example, that this woman is his wife, or that during this period she has been living with him and has not had relations with any other man, and on that basis he concludes that the child this woman gave birth to is his own. This requires reasoning. Although this sounds a bit funny, if you carefully analyze the principle, is it not so? Therefore, regarding the identification of the child, men arrive at it through rational cognition, which requires reasoning; while women do not need this rational cognition, women know it innately, because the child came out of her own body. This is a simple distinction between knowing and the Way.

The reasoning mind of humans and matter is a unique phenomenon. It paused for a very long time. It relies upon conscious thinking and problem-solving methods, and it is a natural human progression, and within the framework of its own activity it is an astonishing mental development.

"The reasoning mind of humans and matter" refers to the reasoning mind of humans in this material world; it is a unique phenomenon, a reasoning mind based on our material world, a reasoning quality in the relationship between humans and our surrounding environment. The reasoning mind is a mental development worthy of our human admiration. We should not question the reasoning mind, nor should we belittle it. Because earlier Seth said that reasoning is needed precisely because you do not know the answer; does this statement itself carry a slight implication of belittling the reasoning mind? Then Seth, fearing that you might fall into this view that knowledge is useless, quickly adds a corrective: he says no, he has no intention of belittling the reasoning mind; it is still a mental development worthy of human admiration. But you must understand its essence--it is not that because it is worthy of admiration, we elevate it to a supreme position; nor is it that because we now understand the essence of the reasoning mind, that it knows nothing and needs to reason, we disparage it as worthless. Neither is correct; we should maintain a relatively balanced attitude.

However, because a larger field of intimate knowledge is lacking, reasoning is necessary.

Our technology is one of the results of that reasoning. All the scientific progress and scientific achievements we have made today, all the abundance and convenience of the material world we enjoy living in this world, are the results of our reasoning. But because we do not live within a larger scope, because we are confined within the framework of space and time, we do not know the knowledge behind this space and time, nor the inner causes of why it happens, so we need reasoning. If we could live within a higher framework, or within a higher dimension, we would know, and would not need to reason. But because we are limited, within the limitations of space and time, we cannot see the future nor the past, so we can only use our reasoning mind, our capacity for reasoning. That is why reasoning is necessary; the reason lies here. Because our range of perception is limited, because we live within a very narrow dimensional space, we must use our reasoning.

Thought is a mental activity, regulated according to the scale of space and time.

Here it specifically refers to human thought as a mental activity; this need not be questioned. But the sentence that follows is one that we humans have previously overlooked: our thought is regulated according to the scale of space and time. We assume by default that of course it is, this point goes without saying. But if we place it within a larger scale, if we know that space and time are originally without limitation, yet we happen to have a limitation of space and time, this leads to the fact that our thought has certain limitations.

So thought is like a mental construction built only according to a certain scale.

A complete, comprehensive, holistic thought would not be limited by space and time, but we humans can only think about problems within the limitations of space and time. Therefore, human thought can be understood as a mental activity under a specific construction--that is, a construction under the limitations of space and time. Mental activity itself does not require the limitations of space and time, but with the limitations of space and time, this mental activity becomes human thought, and within it there is logic, and there is reasoning.

Your thoughts make you human.

This statement from Seth is crucial. It is precisely because we humans have thought that we can be called human.

Then at 8:59, Seth was still speaking slowly. He said, but other creatures have their own kind of mental activity. Do other creatures have thought? Yes. But to avoid confusion, Seth says they also have their mental activity; we humans have our human mental activity, which under the limitations of space and time becomes human thought. Other creatures have their own mental activity, and they also have various direct perceptions of reality that differ from ours; they have their own perception of the world that exists around them.

All species, however, are united by their participation in emotional states.

This statement is crucial, even though it crosses species. All species have their own mental activity, and their mental activity necessarily produces their emotions. What we call emotion is your natural response to the external environment--today it rains, you have an emotion; today it is sunny, you have an emotion; today it is windy, you have an emotion. In fact, you have an emotion toward anything in the external environment. You say you have no emotion; having no emotion is also an emotion, a certain specific emotion. We can understand it this way. We humans have our own perception of the external environment, of the reality around us, and therefore we have emotions. Whether joy, anger, sorrow, or happiness, these are called emotions; inner peace, tranquility, stillness, that so-called samadhi, unruffled calm, that is also an emotion. Therefore, all species respond to their surrounding environment and have emotions, and all of us species are united by these emotions. We all live within such a psychic atmosphere, or within a large psychic emotion, or within an atmosphere of life, an atmosphere of emotion.

This is an idea we ordinarily do not know: you have emotions toward your surrounding environment, a kitten has emotions toward its surrounding environment, flowers and plants have their own emotions toward their surrounding environment, and all these emotions are joined together. A puppy's emotions will affect you, and your emotions will affect the puppy. This is most obvious and direct with humans and pets. Is it the same with plants? Many people say that when some people are in a bad emotional state, even the plants they grow are affected; is this not the principle? It is the same. This is something we humans have not correctly recognized before. Although many scientists are now also speculating whether emotions influence each other, yes, this is crucial. Therefore, why maintain a good emotional state--because your emotions affect your surrounding environment, and the surrounding environment also affects your emotions. We live within a range of emotion, within an emotional union.

Therefore, not only do all biological species have feelings, but all participate in a dimension of emotional reality.

Not only do all living beings have feelings, but they also participate in the creation of the entire emotional reality. Every species contributes itself to the creation of such an emotional world around us, and all participate in it. If we say the material world is a three-dimensional world, then we can regard the world of feeling or the world of emotion as an invisible dimension; you can call it an emotional dimension, or an emotional atmosphere. It is not within the dimensions of our physical space, yet it truly exists. Can you feel it? For example, a spiritual home; the atmosphere of our spiritual home is very good, and everyone feels it as soon as they enter, and this atmosphere is not in any measurable place, nor can you measure what this atmosphere actually is, but everyone within it can feel it.

Animal Morality and Art

People think that only humans have a moral sense, and only humans have free will—if free will is even possible.

People think this thing is unique to humans: that moral sense and free will belong only to humans. He added a dash, "if free will is even possible"—this sentence is very profound, and he will talk about it later, so I will not expand on it for now. He says people think only humans have free will, only humans have a moral sense, and no one else does. This view is obviously incorrect.

However, the word morality has endless implications.

First of all, the word morality itself has endless implications; its range is very broad.

Yet animals have their own morality, and they have an impeccable sense of balance with all other creatures.

Here the word morality is in quotation marks; Seth does not agree with the morality we ordinarily understand. Animals have their own social codes, and they have an impeccable sense of balance with all other creatures. There is no need to elaborate on this; many people already know it. For example, among animals, many are monogamous; there are many mandarin ducks, and many birds are monogamous. For instance, there is a kind of bird called the black-browed swallow, it seems—a kind of swallow with a black eyebrow. This may be the most faithful creature humans have ever observed in the animal kingdom: 99% of black-browed swallows never change partners⁴ in their entire lives. They begin courting at around two or three years old, and they do not settle on a partner until around ten years old⁵. Of course, they also encounter all kinds of emotional problems; for example, the swallow it likes to confess to may not like it back, which is very interesting and quite similar to human society. Then, at the swallow age of ten, after they have chosen their partners, they will live together for about sixty years afterward⁶. This kind of swallow has a very long lifespan, seventy years⁷, as observed by humans. And once they have chosen, only 1% of black-browed swallow pairs will change partners midway⁸, something like divorce; 99% stay together until old age, for their whole lives.

So in our natural world, among other species, there are likewise emotions that we humans cannot understand or comprehend, as well as their own cognition of emotions. They also have these among themselves. I once shared an example: in the great African desert, an elephant picked up a little lion with its trunk and carried it all the way to a place with water. That little lion was so hot that it was already dehydrated and could not walk. Lions and elephants are natural enemies, but in that situation the elephant saved it without any hesitation.⁹ They have loving emotional relationships. They also have complex societies within themselves, whether among their own kind or between themselves and the entire ecological environment and ecosystem, all of which goes beyond ordinary human understanding.

And at least in a manner of speaking, they also have their science, their art and science.

This is a point humans rarely notice: other animal species also have their own art and science; it is not only humans who have art and science. But that art and science are not built on the reasoning you understand. They build their art and science not through reasoning, but through that intuitive knowing ability—they are born knowing, and do not need to acquire the knowledge of art and science through reasoning. We humans cannot do that; it seems humans always need reasoning to acquire it.

So animals not only have emotions, but also science and art; animals also possess independent consciousness, and they also have what humans call free will—he calls it independent consciousness. And although Seth emphasizes animals here, this likewise applies to any large or small creature, such as insects, birds, fish, caterpillars, and it also applies to plant life, and likewise to cells, atoms, electrons, and so on.

They possess free will suited to the conditions of their existence.

All things in the world have will, a will that fits within their own scope. For example, the consciousness of a microorganism—a bacterium or a virus—is obviously different from human consciousness, but it has its own consciousness.

Genes and Free Will

The conditions of existence are largely determined by the structure of the genes.

Here he is talking about humans and animals. From a biological standpoint, being able to exist in this world is largely determined by the structure of the genes. Notice he uses "largely" here, not "entirely" -- remember that, this sentence is very interesting. Our scientists believe that the lives of humans, and at least of other living beings, are entirely determined by genes. He only admits "largely"? If you say it is largely determined by genes, then you have to ask: what is the other part? Scientists cannot answer that. Scientists finally found genes as a piece of biological evidence to confirm the objectivity of objective existence. But Seth tells you directly: the conditions of existence are largely, not entirely, determined by genes. What determines the other part? Can you guess? It is determined by your consciousness. You could also call it the psyche, or something else -- it is all the same.

The operation of free will must necessarily conform to the integrity of the genes.

For you to exist as a species, genes certainly play the larger part, but apart from the role of genes, there is also free will at work -- that is, your consciousness at work. But this free will must conform to the integrity of the genes -- it must operate within the scope of the genes. What does "within the scope of the genes" mean? For example, if your genes are those of a fish, you are born a fish, and you have free will, but you will not have the free will to think about weaving a web, spinning a spider's web -- that does not exist among your options. Do you understand this point? So free will must also operate within the framework of the genes.

The structure of the genes makes the physical organism possible, and through the life of the organism life can be experienced.

Because genes exist, the existence of the physical body becomes possible. Only through this organic life can we experience the existence of physical life. When you no longer have an organism, how can you experience the existence of physical life? And the existence of your physical life, the existence of your body, depends on the structure of the genes.

And to a large degree, that structure must determine the kinds of action that are possible in the world, and the ways in which they can be effectively expressed.

From the individual's standpoint, your experience of life depends on your genetic structure. Each person's experience of life depends on the organism provided by the genetic structure. You live within this organism, and only then can you experience the existence of physical life. So your experience of life depends on the genetic structure. In other words, from a broader perspective, from the standpoint of the whole species, this genetic structure must determine what each species can and cannot do in this world, and then which expressions your free will can have and which it cannot have. This is what he wants to emphasize.

Here he explains the relationship between genetic inheritance and free will: the beaver does not have the freedom to spin a spider's web -- that freedom simply does not exist for the beaver. But the beaver has the freedom to build dams, while the spider does not have the freedom to build dams.

Seth paused for a long time again, because this is another core key point. Among humans -- let us not talk about animals anymore, animals will take care of their own affairs -- let us talk about humans first, because humans care most about themselves.

In humans, the genetic structure largely determines height, the color of your eyes, the color of your hair, the color of your skin, and other such bodily characteristics. And of course, more importantly, it determines the number of fingers and toes -- we all have five fingers and five toes -- as well as other specific physical attributes of your species.

For example, most of the skin is not covered with hair. A person cannot use his free will to fly like a bird, or to perform physical actions that the human body is not equipped to perform. You cannot fly like a bird, because you do not have that free will; a bird can fly through free will. Your human free will cannot make you fly. Although later you can create various tools to make yourself fly, you yourself do not have that ability. Nor can you perform functions that your body does not have, such as burrowing like a rat, or dislocating your bones like a cat.

Yet in many ways, the body is equipped to do far better than you believe.

Actually, your genes, your body, are equipped to do much more, and better, than you think. But the fact remains that the genetic structure limits and inhibits. Although you can do better than you think, there are still certain limitations.

The genetic structure and the chromosomal information actually contain far more information than you can ever use. For example, that genetic information can be combined in countless ways.

These few sentences are concise but extremely important. Your genetic structure and chromosomal information contain far more information than you can use. Its possibilities are far more numerous than what you actually need in your daily life. For example, those genetic materials can be combined in countless ways. I have discussed this issue before: humans have only about one hundred thousand pairs of effective genes on their chromosomes, fewer than many other animals, yet the possibilities for combination in humans are greater than theirs.¹⁰ This is a very interesting matter. You can combine them, you can arrange and rearrange them at any time, you can change them with your consciousness, with your intention. Genes are not forever unchanging; genes can be changed. He will talk about this later.

Gene Triggers and Alterations

Seth paused for a long while, then said:

The species takes care of itself under any and all conditions.

Genetic information also carries countless triggers -- these triggers are triggering mechanisms. If necessary, those triggering mechanisms will alter the combinations of genes. All species take very good care of themselves in this physical world of ours. That is to say, when the external environment changes, when conditions change, and we humans or other species need to adapt to that environment, the genes will change, producing new genetic mutations, and then allow the species to adapt to that environment.

For example, Seth once said that under extreme circumstances, human beings are capable of parthenogenesis, and the same is true of other animals. I mentioned earlier: in an aquarium in one country, two female killer whales lived together, and because there was nothing external coming into the aquarium, they actually gave birth to a baby killer whale¹¹ through asexual reproduction. The scientists were astonished and could not believe it, but later they discovered that this phenomenon is indeed biologically possible. The same is true of humans -- humans do not necessarily have to rely on male and female to reproduce. Of course, in the current environment it is necessary, but when the environment undergoes extreme changes, human genes contain this kind of attribute, and once the mechanism of this attribute is triggered and altered, humans can reproduce asexually. This goes beyond our human scientific understanding and imagination. Seth stopped at this point -- if necessary, and the premise is if necessary, this kind of gene triggering, this triggering mechanism of alteration, will be activated.

But besides this, genetic information is also imprinted upon the code in such a way that there is a constant interaction between that information and the present experience of any given individual. What he means is that genes, in addition to having this triggering mechanism that can change with the environment, also have another attribute: genes can also change according to the person's present experience -- his current life experience, his own thoughts, beliefs, and intentions. He used the word "interaction" rather than "change," but the nature is the same, which is that change occurs. Your emotions, your mental state, the experience you are in right now, will actually change your genes. This is also something scientists have been studying recently -- what changes genes undergo under emotional shifts. Scientists have already discovered some patterns: genes do indeed change along with emotions. So this is an interaction. In other words, your genes have two ways of changing: one is triggering a certain mechanism as the environment changes, and the other is that your own consciousness makes them change. Remember this.

He continued:

That is, no genetic event is inevitable.

This sentence is a bit awkwardly phrased. A genetic event refers to genetic mutation, genetic alteration. He says that no genetic alteration or genetic mutation must necessarily occur. In other words, many diseases are caused by genetic mutations. Our scientists have now discovered that many people who get certain diseases -- for example cancer, leukemia, or some serious illnesses -- are caused by certain genetic defects. Scientists believe these genetic defects are genetic mutations that occur for unknown reasons, and that is why the person develops all kinds of diseases. Here Seth actually wants to say something to these people: the reason you got this disease caused by genetic mutation -- and this genetic mutation is not written into your genetic code such that at a certain age it will definitely be activated, definitely be triggered -- no, it is not. He wants to tell you that it is not unchangeable, not inevitable. Every genetic mutation event can be changed and can be avoided; it just depends on what kind of adjustments and changes you are willing to make. This is also why many people, after contracting very serious illnesses, including cancer and other terminal diseases, can be cured quickly through spiritual and psychological healing, like one miraculous thing happening after another, which is very hard for the scientific community to understand. But Seth provides the answer here: you changed your own genes. It is that simple.

The Psyche's Storehouse

In addition to this bodily genetic structure, there is an inner storehouse of psychic information.

Besides this genetic information, which you have inherited from your family and from your own genetic heritage as a human being, you also have a psychic information storehouse. According to our human understanding, an understanding based on concepts of time and space, that psychic information storehouse contains all the information of this person's reincarnations, the past, and all that has gone before. The history of reincarnation. In addition to your genetic storehouse, you also have a psychological storehouse, and this psychological storehouse includes all the information of your reincarnations.

That provides an overall storehouse of psychic characteristics, tendencies, abilities, and knowledge.

In addition to your genetic inheritance, you also have a psychological inheritance, and this psychological inheritance includes all the characteristics of your reincarnations. So some people are born with certain very distinct characteristics and tendencies, as well as certain special abilities and knowledge that others do not have, and that is part of that person's legacy. Just as the genetic structure is part of the bodily inheritance, our genes are the body's inheritance, the psychological inheritance is your reincarnations.

For example, because of those reincarnational structures, a highly intelligent person may be born into a family of idiots, and musical ability may also appear in its full form.

Many geniuses, quite miraculously, are often born into families where the parents are farmers or completely illiterate. From the standpoint of human genetics, the parents' genes are clearly not that intelligent, yet their child is extremely intelligent. How does that come about? It comes from that psychological storehouse, that psychological database of his reincarnations. For example, some people are born as natural musical geniuses. Mozart could compose at the age of five or six¹², without having to learn any knowledge of composition. Those of us who have studied composition know that composing is not a simple matter; it requires systematic professional training before one can compose. Yet a child of only a few years can pick up a pen and compose directly. Where do you think his musical talent came from?

There was a phone call interruption in the middle; I won't go into the details of the interruption, it was just a friend of theirs calling. Let us continue with what Seth said:

Musical ability may therefore appear with great technical maturity, unrestricted by the genetic family background.

Some people are born with extremely skilled musical ability. Mozart, and all sorts of musical geniuses, I need not go on. It has nothing to do with your genetic background. It is not the case that your parents must be musicians for you to have it. No.

And again, the reincarnational storehouse of characteristics is precisely the reason such events can occur.

The reason is that you have this reincarnational database stored there.

And that inner reincarnational psychic structure also triggers certain genes while ignoring others, or triggers certain combinations of genetic information.

These psychological databases will trigger certain changes, adjustments, and combinations in the genetic database, blocking out some functions while strengthening certain others. It is somewhat like choosing a character's attributes before playing a game: do you choose great physical strength, or innate wisdom and the ability to use magic, or being a born hunter, and so on. It is similar to that. And this is determined by your reincarnational database.

Of course, in actuality, Seth says, you should tell the readers that I laughed. He is so funny, afraid that everyone would not know he laughed:

And actually all time is simultaneous, so all reincarnational lives occur at once.

He emphasizes once again, and we all know this already. It is not that some past consciousness influences the present consciousness; these occur simultaneously, and you must have this concept. Why does he emphasize this sentence here? He is afraid you might fall into a fatalistic view: my past life was such and such, and therefore my present life is such and such, and then you easily fall into that. He quickly pulls you back. Although theoretically it seems as though there is the influence of past-life reincarnation, all these reincarnations occur simultaneously, and with one stroke he pulls you back to a balanced position.

The Actor's Role

Then he gives an example below. He says perhaps an analogy will help, and we follow his example. This example of his is very interesting, very simple:

An actor throws himself into a role he is playing.

Let me give an example. Gong Li played in The Story of Qiu Ju¹³. She had to bring the character Qiu Ju to life; she had to present Qiu Ju authentically. It is very likely that she lived in the countryside for several months. It is said that the film crew really did live in the countryside for several months at the time, so when you watch The Story of Qiu Ju, the Qiu Ju in it is utterly and completely a rural woman, simply lifelike. She even temporarily forgot herself and threw herself into this role. In the process of playing this role, she forgot herself and transformed herself into a character like Qiu Ju. But within a larger framework than that drama -- within a larger, real world of human life -- she still lived and functioned as herself. After the film was finished, after the director called cut, she returned to real life. Right? She is just an actress.

So at this point you have to remember that she lives in two environments: one is her playing Qiu Ju in the film, and the other is her as an actress, as Gong Li, as a famous actress, playing this role. These are two scenes: the small scene is inside the film, and the large scene is Gong Li's own life.

The character in the play, during the performance, seems to be creative and alive.

The character in the play is indeed created by this actor, of course according to the script and the director's arrangement, but the main thing here is the actor's performance. She has to create this character vividly, make him lifelike. So when we watch this film, the character Qiu Ju is alive, just like a real, existing person.

His perception is limited by that framework.

As Qiu Ju, her range of perception is necessarily within the framework set by the script. So you would say, oh, why is this character so stubborn, so headstrong, why can't she look at this problem from a higher angle, why can't she do this or that? Well, the director set it up that way, the script set it up that way. She has to be within that framework, subject to such a limitation.

To perform such a living character, such a limitation is what he set up. Yet, to play that role, the actor has to draw on the experience of his own life -- this is the meaning of An Actor's Self-Cultivation¹⁴: if you want to play this role well, you have to draw from your personal life experience, to obtain the kind of experience this role should have, to study and grasp him. This actor puts his own understanding -- his understanding of this role and this character -- and his sympathy for this role into it. To play this role, he must identify with the role. You cannot say, I reject this role and still play him. If you are going to play a villain, at least during the process of acting you have to identify with the villain's way of thinking. Combining his own understanding, sympathy, and acting skill, all of these concentrated on this, only then can he bring this role to life. Your daily life experience is the foundation and the source for playing this role well. So this is what "drawn from life, yet higher than life" means. If the actor's life experience is insufficient, the role he plays will not be full enough, will not have enough depth.

This is also why when we now watch many films and television dramas, urban dramas, those traffic-generating starlets, those handsome young men, those pretty-boy types, in their twenties or eighteen or nineteen, the films they act in are not good to watch -- they lack life experience and life knowledge. The energy they draw on is not enough, the nourishment is not enough, so the characters they perform are dry and dull. They can only act according to the director's instructions and the plot's instructions. So you often see them expressionless, often keeping a stiff face, as if that is enough to act out the part, because what they lack is exactly this. But if he is a good actor, then when the play is over, because he played that role, he becomes a better person -- his life is thereby enriched, and he can even absorb the good qualities of that character into himself.

What does he want to illustrate with this example? An actor who wants to play a role well must have a larger, expansive living space, a larger source of life to draw from, only then can he play this role well and bring it to life; and at the same time as bringing this role to life, the process of playing this role also has an influence on his real life -- he becomes a better person.

Reincarnation and the Larger You

Now, within the larger structure of reincarnational existence:

You choose your role or your life, but the words you speak and the situations you encounter are not predetermined, not scripted.

Although the reincarnational drama sets your role, your background, your life, and so on, it does not set how you should speak or how you should act; these are all open-ended improvisations. Even when you are living your own life, the "you" in quotation marks—meaning the larger you—also lives within a larger framework, and in time, there is an interaction between you and the you outside of time that is difficult to imagine.

He then gives this example: suppose we are living within this drama, you can think of each of our reincarnations as a role you play, and that larger you is the actor. In each reincarnation he chooses a stage setting—this is the Republican era, this is ancient Rome, this is Egypt—he chooses a background, sets himself up as a specific character, and acts out a lifetime within it. And the real "you" is simultaneously participating in all these roles; he is not in any single space-time, yet he is outside all space-times. And among these roles, it is precisely because of this actor's participation that each role exists vividly. The actor, however, is not in the play; he is outside the play.

Do you understand what I mean? It is like Gong Li not being in the village depicted in The Story of Qiu Ju—she is certainly not in that village—but the role she plays lives within that environment, lives within the scene set by the plot. Qiu Ju is in there; Gong Li is not. Yet Gong Li's experiences outside the play can enrich her performance of the character within the play, making the character fuller; and the character Qiu Ju, in turn, brings about some changes and influences on Gong Li's life, some of them quite significant. Many actors marry someone because of a role, or stop acting because they performed poorly in a play, or change their acting style, and so on—the influence of the role on them is sometimes enormous, sometimes subtle and imperceptible.

Seth uses this example because he actually wants you to understand your free will, the relationship between your role and you—that is, how these reincarnational yous and that larger you interact, just like the interaction between the actor and the role. This is an example everyone can understand, and he puts it very well. I suspect he might be feeling rather pleased with himself, quietly chuckling over having come up with such a good example—with such a simple illustration, he makes the matter so thoroughly clear.

So the you within the drama is like the you within time; the you not in the drama is like the you outside of time. But both inside and outside the play are you—just at one moment in the identity of the actor, at another moment in the identity of the role.

The Reasoning Mind: The Mask of the Role

Then he paused for quite a while:

Within time, you adopt a reasoning mind.

The you within time is the you that reincarnates into the physical world each time. The you within time can only use the reasoning mind. Because the reasoning mind is the result of your mental activity and psychological activity within the framework of space and time. So because you are within time, you only have the reasoning mind.

It is a creative psychological face that you use for the purposes of the drama of your life.

It is a creative psychological face that you use in order to play out the drama of your life well. What is a psychological face? It is using the reasoning mind to look at everything, using the reasoning mind to judge everything -- this is a particular psychological face of yours. Actually, you could do without it, but while you are within time, you prefer to use it to act out this play. This is somewhat like a script: there must be a background, a time, a development of the story, a process of introduction, development, turn, and resolution -- so it must occur against the background of space and time, and this is a special process of reasoning.

The reasoning mind, then, is a special mode of psychological cognition that we adopt. In this analogy of ours, it has certain formal, ceremonial characteristics. Why call it a "psychological face"? Because when you reincarnate and come into this human world to play such a role, you use your reasoning mind as if you were putting on a mask to play this role. You use the reasoning mind to do things, to consider problems; you use the reasoning mind to think, to ponder; you use the reasoning mind to make decisions, to act -- the reasoning mind is like the mask of your role. Can you understand what he means? You use the reasoning mind as a mask.

So in this analogy of his, it will have certain formal or ceremonial characteristics. What is meant by formal and ceremonial? It is like acting in a stage play. Look at those stage actors: their voices are especially loud, their emotions especially full. They no longer resemble our normal way of speaking in daily life; their voices are raised a full octave -- this is their distinctive quality, and so it carries a certain formal and ceremonial character.

So mentally and psychologically, you tend to see only those informations, those materials that are available within the formal structure of the play. For example, you cannot look into the future or into the past.

What he means is that once you use the reasoning mind, you cannot see the past and the future, because from the standpoint of reasoning, these are all unavailable to you -- you cannot see your previous life, you cannot see your next life, and you cannot even see the things in this life that have not yet happened. And this particular sense of ceremony, this seriousness, exists precisely because you use the reasoning mind. What is the purpose? It is to let you experience this drama of life. You need to put on the mask of the reasoning mind; only then can the play of this life be performed well. If you do not use the reasoning mind, the drama of your life cannot be played out as you wish.

Do you understand what he means? In your reincarnation, you do need to use this reasoning mind. Of course, as you progress in spiritual learning and your cognition rises, you have already broken free of the limitations of the reasoning mind, you are already entirely outside the framework of space and time, and you have already recognized your identity as the actor himself -- then of course you have already broken free. That is possible. But while your physical body is still here, when you need to come back, you still need your reasoning mind. When you return to the identity of the actor, you can do without the reasoning mind; when you return to the identity of the role, you need to use the reasoning mind. Does that make sense to you? Although your cognition can already jump back and forth between two different levels, when you jump to a certain role, a certain level, you must use the mask of that level. Do not mix them up, do not use them in the wrong order. In other words, do not use the reasoning mind in Framework 2, and do not entirely abandon the reasoning mind in Framework 1 -- these are two completely mistaken approaches.

Free Will and the Anchoring of Space-Time

You determine your own position through reasoning.

That is, you give yourself a positioning. Otherwise, within a physical framework, your free will would have no meaning. Why does he say you need to have a reasoning mind? He is saying that if you do not anchor yourself at a certain node in space and time, your free will has no meaning. You might say, wouldn't that mean even more free will? Why restrict me? Why confine me to a specific point in time like 2020, to a specific country or region? Doesn't that undermine free will? I could have been anyone, at any time, living anywhere, right? My soul should be unrestricted -- he has talked about this before, and here he emphasizes it again: when you do not anchor yourself within a space-time framework, the so-called free will you have cannot be used, and has no meaning whatsoever.

Remember the example he gave earlier? That is, you could be anyone, live at any time, live in any place, live as long as you want, and do anything -- at that point you seem to possess all free will. But under such a premise, when you can be everything and do everything, you will not do anything at all. When all free will becomes possible, when all choices lie before you and you can choose without any restriction, you will not know what to choose, because the number of choices available is so enormous. If you have no restrictions at all, the number of choices is infinite, to the point that you cannot make up your mind to act within time. Your choices are too many -- so many that by the time you have merely surveyed all the choices, your whole life would be over.

For example, right now you have two choices: join the military, or go to college? Two choices, and all the others have been ruled out. Within these two you can weigh and compare, and use reasoning -- what would happen if I join the military, what would happen if I go to college. But if you had a million choices -- you could be a soldier, an actor, a civil servant, an astronaut; you could be male or female; you could do this or that; you could live in any country in the world; you could be Black or white -- everything is an open choice, then how could you possibly pick the one you truly want out of a million choices? Just learning about those million choices would use up all your time, wouldn't it? You would just stand there doing nothing, blankly running through those million choices in your mind over and over, and the end result would be that you could do nothing at all.

I am giving this extreme example so you can understand: with so many creative opportunities readily available, with so much knowledge -- all knowledge available to you whenever you want it, all opportunities offered to you -- you would be so overwhelmed by all this stimulation that you truly could not make any concrete response. You might say, what is so hard about that? I would just do whatever I feel like doing. The premise is, it is under conditions of limitation that you can choose what you want to do; when there is too much stimulation and too many choices, you get overwhelmed -- you really do get overwhelmed. Many people do not understand this and think, how could that be? How could I really be like that?

Let me give a more extreme example that everyone can easily understand. Suppose when you are looking for a boyfriend in life, it seems as though you have endless choices, as though all the men in the world are available to you, but in the actual process you find that your range of choices is actually quite narrow -- the same goes for finding a girlfriend. Then, based on all kinds of circumstances and conditions, you choose your partner. Now, suppose I tell you that I am giving you a power: you may choose to spend your life with any man you like, without needing his consent -- as long as you like him, that is enough -- and the man you choose is also, by definition, someone who will love you deeply the moment you choose him. All the men in the world are yours to choose from, anyone at all. At that point you would be stunned; you would not know whom to choose.

For men, the same extreme example applies in the same way: if he is choosing among a limited number of women, he can tell which one is his life partner and which one he likes; but if a hundred beautiful women were standing around him, each one gorgeous and refined and well educated, he would not know whom to choose -- he could only draw lots. If he could only choose one, he would have to draw lots; if he could choose every one of them, he would just stand there not knowing what to do.

And your particular kind of civilization, with its science and art, could never have been achieved.

Why? Because we would all be standing there doing nothing, not knowing what to choose. All knowledge would be available; you could be an artist, a painter, a musician, an athlete; you could do anything without any restriction -- but which one do you actually want to do? You would be somewhat at a loss.

Regardless of whether your present science, art, and civilization have their flaws, they are still great achievements and unique products of the reasoning mind.

The flaws do not obscure the virtues. Although our present civilization, science, and art have their flaws, they cannot but be called a great achievement of human civilization, a great achievement and unique product of the reasoning mind. You cannot deny this.

Without the reasoning mind, a painter would have no need to paint.

You might say, the reasoning mind is a limitation of space and time, a space-time limitation on spiritual and psychological activity, so wouldn't you be better off without it? He says that without the reasoning mind, a painter would not paint. Why? Because his mental events -- the immediacy of the picture in his mind -- would be so instantaneous and so dazzling. The picture in his mind would emerge directly, and be so dazzling, so spiritually complete and self-sufficient, that he would not need to try to actually paint it in the physical world. There would be no need; he would already have it in his mind.

I do not mean to belittle the quality and excellence of the reasoning mind as you understand it.

He is not belittling the present excellence and quality of the reasoning mind. It has its function, and a very great function at that. To put it more bluntly: without the reasoning mind, we would not be creating the world we have today in physical reality. We would be living in a purely spiritual realm, and would make no attempts in the physical world, because in the spiritual world we would already be inherently complete and self-sufficient. The reason we still create this and that in the physical world is precisely that we want to manifest our spiritual completeness and self-sufficiency in the physical world. It is that simple.

The Limits of the Reasoning Mind and Animal Consciousness

But you have become so specialized in your use of the reasoning mind.

Although you should not belittle the reasoning mind, you have used the reasoning mind too exclusively, too rigidly, and favored it so much that you tend to use the reasoning mind as the only yardstick for judging intellectual life and for examining all other kinds of consciousness -- and that is not good. You need to understand that the reasoning mind is only a kind of mental and psychological activity under specific limitations of time and space. If you use this thing to reason about other mental activities that are not limited by time and space, other kinds of consciousness, then that is not appropriate. You should recognize its limitations. In other words, it is only effective and useful within the physical world; if you apply it to other nonphysical realms, it becomes useless.

You are surrounded everywhere by other kinds of consciousness, for the most part.

Besides this consciousness, you also have other kinds of consciousness. But if you use your reasoning mind to judge other kinds of consciousness, that is not good.

You largely ignore their validity, and you disregard their psychic kinship with you.

Because of the existence of the reasoning mind, you ignore the existence of other kinds of consciousness -- because they do not meet the standards of your reasoning mind. Yet other kinds of consciousness are all connected with our consciousness from within, in a relationship as close as siblings; but because you ignore their validity, you sever the connection with them.

The consciousnesses of the animal kingdom in particular deal with another form of knowing, but share with you the reality of profound emotional experience.

The animal kingdom has another form of knowing, one not obtained through the reasoning mind, yet they share with you the reality of profound emotional experience. As I mentioned earlier, each species has its own emotional reality, and this emotional reality interacts with and influences our human emotional reality, so we share this emotional reality. But we do not acknowledge it, or our reasoning mind cannot recognize their existence, so we ignore the connection with them and cannot establish this sense of oneness with them.

And they are innately aware of biological and psychic values.

Other animal species are innately aware of biological and psychic values, unlike us humans, who need reasoning to figure it out -- we need to study the Seth material, to go through all kinds of learning courses before we can understand: oh, so we are all one, all things are one. They do not need that; they can feel it directly, whether biologically or psychically, they can feel this oneness of existence among themselves and each other's value.

But in ways that your prejudiced examination cannot perceive.

The so-called prejudice is our reasoning mind; our reasoning mind is prejudiced. In ways that our reasoning mind cannot understand, they obtain direct cognition of biological and psychic values.

To some extent, that emotional reality is expressed at other levels also, in the dream state.

This emotional reality that we live in -- that emotional dimension, the emotional dimension I told you about -- truly exists in that dimension. It is also expressed in the dream state, or at other levels within dreams. That is to say, the information we cannot obtain under this reasoning conscious mind will be expressed to us at other levels of consciousness, such as in dreams.

As your own reality is, of course.

Our own reality is also expressed in dreams, and the emotional reality is also expressed in dreams. In our dreams, things from the three-dimensional world often appear; that is the expression of the three-dimensional world's reality in dreams; and the emotional reality is also expressed in dreams.

In which animals and men alike take part in a vast cooperative adventure.

That is, animals and humans alike take part in a vast cooperative adventure -- the oneness between each other, between us and all things. Under this cooperative oneness, we go together to explore this physical world; we and other species explore this physical world cooperatively together. He calls it a cooperative adventure, not a competitive one -- remember, that is the biggest difference.

That helps form the psychological atmosphere in which your lives must first of all exist.

This sentence is very crucial. This mechanism of cooperative adventure among all things can form the psychological atmosphere in which our lives must exist. That is to say, without this psychological atmosphere of the cooperative adventure of the oneness of all things, life could not be born from the heart. In other words, without the cooperation of the oneness of all things, there would be no existence of life. Only when the psychological atmosphere of the oneness of all things exists first can life emerge from within it.

And he specifically points out that if you use the reasoning mind, it is very hard to see this. This session mainly talks about what the reasoning mind is: the role and significance of the reasoning mind, how the reasoning mind came about, the limitations of the reasoning mind, and the function of the reasoning mind. We are not denying it; we are only seeing its limitations -- seeing its limitations is not denying it. You must understand this.

Then Seth said the dictation was over:

Unless you have questions, the session is over. Ruburt can relax now.

He said this with humor. Rob said, fine, I have no questions, this material was excellent. At 10:01, the session ended.

Note 1: Art and Nature

Here is Note 1. The content of this session is now finished. This is what Seth wanted to convey, and everyone should digest and absorb it. This part about the reasoning mind is very interesting, and he will come back to this topic later.

The following is an excerpt from the session on April 9. Incidentally, I did not request this session. Seth discussed Jane's and my functions as artistic individuals, and the general role of art in the probable reality we have chosen. As always, Seth added his own deeper and broader insights.

Regarding art, Seth said:

All creatures, at whatever degree, have their own appreciation of aesthetics.

This is something we humans did not know before. We thought only humans had this thing called aesthetics. For example, Zhu Guangqian wrote a book specifically called On Beauty¹⁵, devoted to human aesthetic cognition. If you are interested, you can look into it. We humans thought only humans had the concept of aesthetics, but in fact all things in the world have it.

In all such creatures, their art is so perfectly integrated into their lives that the two cannot be separated.

In other words, they live their lives as art. But we humans need to create art — we ordinary people separate art from life, whereas animals live their lives as art. These are two different concepts.

For example, the spider's web and the beaver's dam.

This is their life, but it itself possesses artistic beauty. And there are countless other examples.

This is not blind instinctive behavior at all.

Our scientists think this is blind, genetically based instinctive behavior. But he says:

It is the result of orderly, spontaneous memory.

It is orderly, and it is spontaneous and well-ordered.

Art is not a specific activity reserved for humans alone, although people like to believe so.

We believe art is unique to humans. First of all, art is a natural characteristic. Nature itself is a form of art.

I am trying to stretch across your definitions.

He says, I want to expand your definition of art, extend it to other species, other kinds, even other categories.

For example, flowers in a certain fashion are themselves artistic creations. They have an aesthetic appreciation of their own colors — different, of course, from your perception of color.

Flowers naturally have an aesthetic appreciation of their own colors. Do not think that a flower produces its color, as scientists would say, because of its needs — because different colors need to absorb specific light, and so on — no. Flowers know their own colors, and they appreciate their own colors.

But in the most basic terms of art, nature seeks to surpass itself, even though those terms may include quite practical purposes.

It seeks to surpass itself, constantly trying in terms of color — here he only mentions color, though shape is certainly one of them as well — to produce ever more beautiful colors. Although the color itself has practical purposes within it, such as attracting bees for pollination and so on, scientists have many explanations for flower colors. Seth says, I do not deny that the color of flowers has practical purposes, but it also has aesthetic significance within it.

The natural person, then, is a natural artist.

Every natural person is a natural artist. The most typical example we all know is Li Ziqi. She lives in a mountain village, doing the most natural things, living the most ordinary life in nature, and as a result everyone loves watching her life, as if it were a performance art. So the natural person is in themselves a natural artist.

In a fashion, painting is an attempt by humans to create nature.

In a certain way, painting is an attempt by humans to create nature. Humans are born able to paint, which is why the murals of ancient times, the paintings in caves, were created without any training.

An original yet orderly, mental yet physical interpretation of one's own reality.

It is a physical interpretation of one's own spirit.

And further, it creates a new version of reality for humanity.

That is, taking spiritual things and displaying them in material form — this is the natural creation of painting. Later, of course, it became art.

Then Seth said loudly to Rob:

You are still learning, and your work is still developing.

He says your work is not fixed yet; it is still developing. If that were not the case, would you not be very unfortunate?

Any true artist always has an artistic dissatisfaction with completed work.

Ask any artist what their best work is, and they will tell you it is the next one. Because they are always aware of the tension and pull between the ideal they sense and its manifestation in reality — between the thing they want to create in their mind, the artwork they ideally want to create, and the artwork they ultimately produce, there is always something they are dissatisfied with.

In a fashion, the artist is actually seeking a creative solution to a sensed problem or challenge that is never clearly stated.

What is art always doing? It is always trying to take a feeling that can be sensed but never clearly articulated — the problem or challenge within that feeling — and seeking a creative solution for it. Whether through painting, music, sculpture, or other means, the artist wants to concretize that feeling, that ineffable feeling.

And that is an adventure that is in fact never-ending.

What does never-ending mean? It means that once you create something, you will find it is not exactly what you imagined, and there is always something you are dissatisfied with.

In general terms, this must be an adventure without a clearly stated purpose.

From another angle, your creation must be without a clear purpose.

In the most basic terms, the artist cannot say where he is going.

He cannot say to what degree his work will ultimately reach, nor can he say to what level his ultimate artistic attainment will go. Because if he knew in advance where he would go — or to what point his art would develop — then he would not be creating; he would be copying something. Since it is creation, he himself does not know what it will become or what kind of artwork will be achieved.

The true artist is involved in an inner work with himself and the universe.

The true artist places himself and the universe in the relationship between the two — within the relationship between the small self and the universe, he makes the choices he makes.

And the artist often does indeed turn his back on recognized, accepted avenues of knowledge.

In his interaction with the universe, the artist always wants to create that inexpressible thing he senses, and this thing itself cannot be obtained through traditional knowledge or reasoning. In other words, what the artist creates cannot be reasoned out through the reasoning mind as we ordinarily understand it, nor is it something the general public can tolerate or understand. Many artists — here he means true artists; those who copy others do not count as true artists.

And what is more, understanding that point, he often does not know how to assess his own progress.

Many artists are very wise. They understand this point — they understand that the relationship between themselves and the universe is the source of their creation, and that this relationship lies outside the existing framework of human knowledge. They know this too, but they do not know how to assess what kind of state they should be in — this "progress" means what kind of state they have reached. They cannot assess it, because it transcends the system obtainable through human knowledge; they are outside this system of human knowledge.

Since his journey has no recognizable creative purpose, he does not know what state he is in.

That is, his creation has no purpose — no recognizable purpose. It is not that there is no purpose; it is that there is no purpose recognizable to us humans.

By its very nature, art basically places whatever artist — wherever he may be — in a state of harmony with the universe. For the creative energy the artist draws upon is the same energy from which life is given.

This statement is very interesting. Those who study art can savor it carefully: art places the artist in a state of harmony with the universe, and within this state of harmony, within the core state of the universe, the artist draws upon creative energy, and only then can he create his artwork. And this creative energy he draws upon is the same energy from which our lives are given — it is the same kind of energy. This is how Seth wants to discuss the essence of art from its very foundation.

So after reading this passage, you will have a somewhat deeper understanding of true artists. Just look at Soul — why do we say that animated film is so well made? It has many details, and a great deal of care and intellect went into it. You see how when he plays the piano, the moment he enters the realm of art, of artistic creation, he lives in another dimension. So it is very interesting. In a certain sense, Soul¹⁶ is an excellent film for spiritual inspiration.

Note 2: Free Will and Determinism

Note 2. Rob is explaining what is meant by personal will or free will. He says:

The philosophical theory that a person, without being compelled, is free to choose actions consistent with his particular morals and ideals.

He is explaining what free will means. You just need to have a general understanding of this; it has no real practical significance, because these are all just human definitions of such things.

Determinism is the opposite theory.

He says that every event, and even every person's conduct, is determined by conditions outside the will. For example, genes determine it; for example, your past lives, karma, cause and effect -- these are all called determinism. He is explaining what free will is and what determinism is, these two schools. And these are all Rob's views; Rob summarized and excerpted them for you, afraid that you would not understand.

He says:

For generations, philosophical and religious thinkers have created all sorts of concepts involving free will and determinism, one after another, endlessly.

Neither of these two theories is as simple as it appears on the surface; they are extremely complex. Fatalism, predestination, the theory of cause and effect, karma, reincarnation, and so on -- these are all representative ideas of determinism. And the thing that explains this most thoroughly is the story at the very beginning of Liao Fan's Four Lessons¹⁷ -- it uses one person's real experience and personal journey to explain determinism and free will very thoroughly. So if you want to understand this question, just read Liao Fan's Four Lessons: whether free will actually exists, whether predestination actually exists.

For example, people long ago connected the idea of free will with whether one could deliberately choose to do evil, and this is still the case today.

Whenever people speak of free will, they think: so he can choose to do bad things -- is that free will? Before an omniscient and omnipotent God, is man free? People are still struggling with this question, not knowing whether those traits cause events, or whether they can cause events, and whether events involve predestination. We will not expand on his discussion of this, because these are all his own reflections on the question.

Contrary to determinism is the concept that man has always struggled for his personal goals and for his responsibility; as opposed to being entirely controlled by his heritage, he can form new syntheses of thought and behavior according to the complex patterns of his own history.

On the opposite side of determinism, there is a new way of thinking: man must struggle for his own responsibility, and then he will go and change his fate, defy heaven and change his destiny, and create new syntheses.

What is strange is that, for Jane and me, determinism as a concept always seemed to be missing something.

The two of them do not accept determinism. Because if it really were so, then clearly humanity set up certain boundaries within which determinism operates, and then rebelled against it -- so why would we do that? He is denying this through logic. He is saying for the first time: suppose determinism really did exist, then why does humanity still deny it? People do not like determinism, so why would they still set up determinism themselves? Set up their own limitations on themselves?

In other words, on a shared as well as a personal scale, although it may be vast, we do indeed create shared and personal reality.

Rob says, perhaps from a higher perspective, from the perspective of the universe, there may indeed be determinism within it, with its laws and rules on a larger scale. But within our limited, personal, and shared human reality, we humans do indeed have our own free will in creating our own reality. What Rob means is: on a large scale there is determinism, but I do not care about that; I only care that within the range I can control, I have free will. Can you understand what he means?

I would like to add that even in terms of the concept of religious determinism -- for example, that one cannot know the will of God, or that man is quite dependent upon divine grace -- in such terms, we are still creating our conscious concept of the nature of God. So once again, we have a determinism that operates within the boundaries of our own faculties and intellect, which is another framework within which we continually attempt to understand the meaning of life.

I will not expand on this passage. These are all Rob's own reflections on determinism and free will, and he placed them here. I think his reflections can represent the views of a portion of people, and can also provoke your own thinking and contemplation. Here, because in Western society the idea of God as creator is deeply rooted in their thinking, he uses this as an example. What he wants to say is: if God truly cannot be fathomed, then we humans, within the range of our own feelings and cognition, use our efforts to explore the meaning of life. Let us set aside what God says for now; from the human perspective, exploring the meaning of our own lives is also a manifestation of free will. His thinking has something quite far-reaching in it; he really did think seriously about this question.

Let us return to what Seth says about free will and determinism. In this session, the relationship among the film, the actors, and the roles -- he actually already explained it very thoroughly. He explained it from the genetic level and from the level of psychology influencing genes; that example already made it completely clear. Rob still wanted to place his own reflections here, which can also serve as a side reference for you, but I would rather you fundamentally understand the thought that Seth was trying to express.

He says that when it comes to material, cultural, and civilizational data, he asks you to look at Chapter 5 of The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events.

This session is extremely important. I hope everyone will think carefully about it: about the reasoning mind, free will, determinism, and also genes, heredity, and the relationship with one's own subjective initiative. This is a deep and thought-provoking session; although it is not too difficult in terms of difficulty, the depth of thought is not low.

注释与核实

1. Source: Jane Roberts, Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment: Volume One (https://nowdictation.com/q/book%3Adeavf1%2Bsession%3A907%2Bpsychological%2Btime/) ↩

2. Source: Mary Dillman, List of Seth Sessions, 2016 (https://sethresearchproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/SessionListforInternet4.pdf) ↩

3. Source: Jane Roberts, The Personal Sessions: Book 5 of The Deleted Seth Material (https://nowdictation.com/q/book%3Atps5%2Bheading%3A%27deleted%2Bsession%2Bapril%2B9%2B1980%27%2Binner%2Bsenses/) ↩

4. According to Mike’s original words, “99% of black-browed albatrosses never change partners in their lifetime”; upon verification, it should be “black-browed albatrosses have relatively high mate fidelity, but the average annual ‘divorce rate’ in the Falkland Islands study population is 3.7%, ranging from 0.8% to 7.7% across years, not 99% never changing partners in their lifetime.” (Source: Francesco Ventura et al., Environmental variability directly affects the prevalence of divorce in monogamous albatrosses, 2021, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8611344/) ↩

5. Source: Wikipedia, Black-browed albatross (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-browed_albatross) ↩

6. This claim could not be verified. ↩

7. Source: Jacob Gardner, Thalassarche melanophrys, 2011 (https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Thalassarche_melanophrys/) ↩

8. This claim could not be verified. ↩

9. This claim could not be verified. ↩

10. According to Mike’s original words, “humans have only about one hundred thousand effective gene pairs on their chromosomes, fewer than other animals, but the possibilities of human combination are greater than theirs”; upon verification, it should be “the human genome contains about 20,000 genes distributed across 23 pairs of chromosomes, not about one hundred thousand gene pairs.” (Source: National Human Genome Research Institute, Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet, https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Deoxyribonucleic-Acid-Fact-Sheet) ↩

11. According to Mike’s original words, “through self-fertilization it gave birth to a baby killer whale”; upon verification, it should be “the animal that produced offspring through parthenogenesis in an aquarium was a female zebra shark, not a killer whale, which is a mammal; the study recorded that this zebra shark produced pups without a male.” (Source: D. P. Robinson et al., Annually recurring parthenogenesis in a zebra shark Stegostoma fasciatum, 2011, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22026614/) ↩

12. Source: Library of Congress, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Guide to Primary and Secondary Resources at the Library of Congress, 2026 (https://guides.loc.gov/mozart) ↩

13. Source: China Central Television, The Story of Qiu Ju (https://www.cctv.com/movie/20060817/102012.shtml) ↩

14. According to Mike’s original words, “On the Actor’s Personal Cultivation”; upon verification, it should be “the Chinese title of Stanislavski’s work is An Actor Prepares, not On the Actor’s Personal Cultivation.” (Source: Shanghai Theatre Academy Library, An Actor Prepares, https://opac.sta.edu.cn/book/254715) ↩

15. Source: University of International Business and Economics Library, On Beauty, 1994 (https://opac.uibe.edu.cn/opac/book/798fa03db28ae587622492b7274198e4) ↩

16. According to Mike’s original words, “Soul Journey”; upon verification, it should be “the correct title of this film is Soul, not Soul Journey.” (Source: National Copyright Administration, Eighth Batch of Key Works Copyright Protection Warning List for 2020, 2020, https://www.ncac.gov.cn/xxfb/tzgg/202012/t20201214_50499.html) ↩

17. Source: Wikipedia, Liao-Fan’s Four Lessons (https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E4%BA%86%E5%87%A1%E5%9B%9B%E8%A8%93) ↩