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 block quotes are Seth's original words (the portions Mike read aloud).
Introduction
This chapter takes as its theme "the genetic system is an inner biological and cosmic language," pointing out that genes are equally universal to all races, dreams are another cosmic language, and individual differences lie mainly in subjective experience. This chapter discusses the role of genetic defects and variations in value fulfillment: among species there is only cooperation, no fundamental competition, and the value fulfillment of the individual and the species advance hand in hand; variations must be biologically born out to maintain flexibility. Conscious intent can trigger genetic or reincarnational factors, and dreams provide the connecting link. Finally, it points out that the end cannot justify the means, and one should cherish the body.
Key Points of This Chapter
- The genetic system is a universal language that emerges from the inner world, equally applicable to all races; dreams are another universal language, and the two are spoken together.
- Racial differences among humans are only minor variations within a larger sameness, with individual differences falling mainly in subjective experience; there is no fundamental competition between races, but rather cooperation.
- The value fulfillment of the individual and of the species go hand in hand; genetic variations and so-called defects must be biologically born in order to maintain the flexibility and diversity of humanity.
- Conscious intent and purpose can trigger the necessary genetic or reincarnational factors, and the dream state provides the connecting link between the various systems of consciousness.
- Suffering in itself is not a virtue, but some people choose defective bodies for their personal value fulfillment; the end does not justify the means, and one should love, protect, cherish, and express the body.
Main Text
Hello everyone, I am Mike. Today I will continue introducing Seth's book Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, Volume 2, Session 911.
This session began at 8:55 p.m. on Monday, April 28, 1980, and right from the start Seth went straight to the main theme. The theme of this session: the genetic system is an inner biological and cosmic language.
First, this is a theme that states its purpose clearly from the outset. The genetic system is something we are all familiar with. First of all, it is biological, and there is no mistake about that; scientists are in agreement on this point. But how do we understand "inner"? It means that it emerges from our inner world. The genetic system is not the final determining thing; beneath it there are still deeper inner factors. In other words, it emerges from our inner self.
And what does "cosmic language" mean? It means it is universal; it is universal everywhere. Genes do not need to distinguish between different races or different species; they are universal.
In your terms, from our human perspective, this cosmic language speaks flesh, and among all the races of humanity, it speaks flesh equally. If genes are a cosmic language, then this language has built our bodies; our flesh and blood are made by this genetic language. And it is equal. In the process by which various genes build our bodies, there is no distinction between good and bad; it is all the same. There is no such thing as inferior or superior races; it is not that one race is good and another is bad.
Let us also say that dreams provide you with another kind of cosmic language. Besides this genetic language, we humans also have another kind of cosmic language, and that is dreams. The dreams of people of different races and different cultures are connected in certain qualities. Dreams are the same for all races and all people; everyone dreams, and what they feel and experience in dreams does not differ because of their race or culture. This is a language that unifies all people—in dreams, it is the same for everyone, regardless of their physical environment, nationality, or the alliance or organization they belong to. It is all the same.
The classification of different races is merely how you organize the small differences within the great commonality. We humans as a whole are divided into different races, and these races are the different subdivisions under the great commonality of humanity. You have used these small differences for various purposes. But why do these small differences exist? Because we have such purposes, these small differences appear. Those purposes often lead you to exaggerate the differences between groups and to diminish the biological unity and consistency of human beings. We emphasize this difference, but in fact we ignore that for us as a human race, the consistency is far greater than the differences—if the skin is a little darker or a little lighter, what essential difference is there?
Then, the most important aspects of individuality, those subjective characteristics. He says that our bodies are actually all the same, but our subjectivity is different, so you will have great differences. For example, the same food: some people feel terrible after eating it, while others cannot eat it at all. For instance, people allergic to peanuts cannot eat peanuts; some people cannot eat meat; or some people, not that they cannot, but their culture does not allow them to eat it. Here individuality is mainly filled in on subjectivity—your subjective feelings are different, but physically speaking, we are all the same.
On the one hand they separate one person from another, and on the other hand, each is like a glittering piece of a psychological mosaic, giving a refined and exquisite individual version of the larger pattern from which humanity emerges.
What does "the larger pattern from which humanity emerges" refer to? Biologically speaking, it is our human genes; in essence, it is All That Is. Let us set aside everything else for now and just speak in terms of genes—this session is about genes. The larger pattern from which humanity emerges is that we humans have a common gene, and this gene is the same; all human beings are in a state of equality. And individuality can display its distinction and refinement within this. Every person is unique; fingerprints are different, appearances are different, voices are different, speech, manner, and temperament are also different. So each person is unique, refined, like a glittering piece of a puzzle, giving the whole human puzzle your one-of-a-kind piece.
In such a way, each person's sense of safety, wholeness, and splendor is born from that cosmic genetic language.
Your wholeness, your sense of safety—as a human race, although you are an individual, you possess the complete genetic library of all humanity; the sense of wholeness is that you belong to the entire human family; splendor is that each person has their own splendor, and can also enjoy the common splendor of all humanity. Your personal splendor also contributes a part to the splendor of the whole. All of this, whether your wholeness, your safety, or your personal splendor, originates from this genetic source; it is all born from this.
And it is also born from the subjective cosmic language within your dreams.
Here he mentions dreams. Why mention dreams? Because dreams, like genes, are a cosmic language; they cross races, species, and ethnic groups. All humans dream, and animals also dream; here we are only talking about humans. So it is the same as the language in our subjective dreams; both are world languages.
There is a remarkable connection between the two, and the two are spoken together.
This is something many people do not understand—our dreams and our genes are both universal languages; they cross the differences between races, and they are spoken together. What does "spoken together" mean? There is a core point here: in dreams we are subjective; dreams are all subjective worlds, where what you see is what you get, and whatever you think of appears. But our physical world, from the perspective of your senses, is an objective world. And the individual experience of genes is a subjective experience.
He points out: your human genes are all the same, but the differences you can feel—the points where you are different from others, apart from your individual sense of identity—are mainly because your subjective feelings are different from others'. The same event happening to you and to someone else is different. For example, the same chili pepper: people from Sichuan and Hunan find it absolutely delicious, but for someone who does not like spicy food, eating that chili pepper is like suffering. The same genes respond to different things with completely different subjective feelings. For example, a long-time marathon runner feels restless all over if they do not run ten or twenty kilometers a day; but for someone who is not athletic, forcing them to run ten-plus kilometers a day is almost like killing them. This difference lies in the difference of subjective feeling.
He makes a link between dreams and genes, because later he will discuss: in dreams we also have an influence on genes, and the influence on genes can also be produced in dreams, just as we also have an influence on genes while awake. When he says "the two are spoken together," this is what he means. In the previous sessions he said that in dreams, when we do not know it, the modifications we make to genes can actually trigger some genetic mutations, which are very important and beneficial.
Then he says, let us make it more practical—what was said before was all very general, about humanity as a whole; he says let us speak of something concrete, and look at how these issues fit into your reality, and what relation they have to our real lives.
When you try to recall some feelings and daydreams that you have set aside or denied, those require a remarkable honesty on your own part.
This passage seems to come out of nowhere, but there is deep meaning in it. Think about it: in your life, there are often some daydreams or feelings that you set aside or denied. For example, some girls have erotic dreams, and the person in the dream is so bizarre that she is too embarrassed to say it out loud, and can only keep it in her heart. Many boys are the same; the objects of those erotic dreams in real life can only be described as "impossible," and some are even forbidden loves, things that cannot be accepted. Including some feelings—some very strange subjective feelings—he has to set them aside, unable to let them have any connection with his life, because they are too far beyond common sense.
These things are some honest expressions of yourself in certain aspects you do not usually notice. Because ordinarily you would not have such feelings, but those things are not absent from your consciousness; they have just been suppressed by you—suppressed by education, learning, and the cultural influences you received from childhood. But on your honest side, you will have all kinds of thoughts.
Why does he say this? It is related to what comes later. What he means is: some subjective feelings are denied by you; you do not bring all subjective feelings out and place them in front of you. You do some filtering—where something does not match your values or cognition, you directly deny it, and even regard it as a strange dream or experience, wishing you could forget it as soon as possible. So we are not honest with ourselves, but in dreams, and in some special subjective feelings, you are honest; it is a remarkable honesty.
Then, why are some people born experiencing conditions that are clearly genetic defects? He connects these two questions. You see, it seems like quite a leap. If you think carefully, later he will be able to bring them together.
Even as far as the race is concerned, such variations may have overall value. Because once again, I must emphasize that nature itself does not in fact make such judgments, regardless of what your scientific or religious beliefs may be.
Let us first talk about the later passage, then return to the earlier one. Later he says, but why are some people born disabled, with genetic defects? Why are some people born blind, deaf, lacking some sense, or born missing hands or feet? He says, does this individual variation have value for the whole? He raises a question mark.
Here Seth emphasizes again, and fearing that you might go astray, he pulls you back: from nature's perspective, he does not discuss the question of value. Although we have been talking about value fulfillment, value fulfillment is also an understanding in human language. Seth emphasizes again that from nature's perspective there is no good or bad, no right or wrong, and even less any value—whether value is good or beautiful, it simply exists as it is.
Speaking of this, why did he say that earlier passage? He wants to tell you: just as you have some strange thoughts—for example, you want to kill someone; this is a thought in many people's minds, and you have even imagined how to torture them after killing them, how to see them suffer and beg for mercy; everyone has had similar thoughts. These things are at least your honest side, except that you dare not recognize them from the correct ethical and moral perspective, but that does not mean they do not exist.
He said that earlier passage to echo the later passage. But this leap is a bit far, and many people may not understand: it is very normal for you to have some strange thoughts, so it is also very normal for there to be some strange special defects or variations in our human genes. It is the same as the appearance of your strange thoughts. You cannot say that because you have these thoughts you are no longer human; you are still human. Then you cannot say that people who express these strange genes are no longer human; they are still human. This is what he means.
Science seems to believe that the individual is only important when he or she is useful to the survival of the species.
Science believes that you are only alive if you are useful to the development of humanity as a whole. You must have meaning for society; if your existence has no meaning for the development of this society and humanity as a whole, then there is no need for you to exist. This is what scientists believe. Is it right? No. Because from nature's perspective, there is no such view; this is humanity's own view, and nature does not have it. Every existence has its reasonableness and its value. You cannot say whether this existence promotes human development; if you cannot find some meaning of promotion or some meaning of value, then it seems as if this person's existence is wrong.
He is afraid you will fall into another strange circle. What strange circle? It is like what was said in the previous session: the existence of idiots is meaningful for the existence of geniuses in human society as a whole, and so on. He is especially afraid that you will consider the problem from this angle—oh, so idiots have their meaning; idiots are meaningful for the overall development of humanity. He is especially afraid that you will enter such a strange circle of thought. This strange circle is wrong; first of all you must understand that this strange circle is wrong. Error differs from truth only by a hair's breadth; if you understand it this way, you have gone astray again.
What is the correct understanding? It simply exists as it is. It does not need a reason; it does not need to make some contribution to the genetic development of humanity as a whole in order to exist. It does not need that. It just exists as it is, and that is reasonable, normal, and natural. You must return to such a balanced and centered attitude, and not try to weave reasons and purposes for its existence.
So Seth said that earlier passage to tell you that from a certain angle it is meaningful, but he is afraid you will fall into searching for the true meaning of every variation or every genetic defect. Now you know why Seth speaks the way he does.
And I am not saying that.
He does not say that. He says, how do I say it? Look at how Seth expresses it:
The existence of each individual is important to the value fulfillment of the species. And furthermore, I am stating that the value fulfillment of the individual and of the species go hand in hand.
He changes the angle: each person's value fulfillment is important to the value fulfillment of humanity as a whole. It seems there is no essential difference, but the difference is great. Where is the great difference? The first is that he emphasizes each person's value fulfillment—acknowledging that the individual's value fulfillment is important. Important in what way? It is important to the value fulfillment of humanity as a whole. But you cannot say it in reverse: the meaning of your existence is that because you are meaningful to the value fulfillment of humanity as a whole, therefore your existence has meaning. Saying it that way is wrong.
You can only say that each person's value fulfillment has meaning for the development of humanity as a whole. Can you distinguish the subtle difference between these two? This subtle difference is the tiny difference between error and truth; it differs by just this much. It looks as if both are plausible and both are right, but if you carefully distinguish them, the interests and connotations within are completely different.
Let me emphasize this once more: it is not that our individual existence has meaning only because it has value and meaning for the existence of humanity as a whole; it is because our individual existence has meaning in itself, and our individual existence has meaning for the existence of humanity as a whole in itself, without needing to find any additional meaning for it. This meaning is inherent; you do not need to weave it, search for it, or seek it. Find what meaning you have for the overall development of humanity? No need to search; you already have meaning. This is the most essential difference.
The value fulfillment of humanity and the value fulfillment of the individual go hand in hand.
There is no question of one being more important than the other; there is no such thing as the value fulfillment of humanity as a whole being greater than the value fulfillment of the individual.
I state here that humanity as a whole is aware of the conditions that lead to its own value fulfillment and that of its members.
Let me say a bit more, in case you do not understand. It is that humanity as a whole is capable of being aware of its own value fulfillment and the value fulfillment of the individuals who compose it; it knows all of it. Alright, that is the end of it; nothing more can be said; saying more would be wrong.
What does "saying more" mean? At this point, if you say more, you begin to weave reasons—why each person? How and why? That is not right; do not look for reasons; it is enough to stop here.
Basically speaking, each species will only consider its own existence biologically together with other species in a cooperative manner. There is no basic competition between species.
Basically speaking, among every species—not just humans, but among all things—they will only act in a cooperative manner. Remember, cooperation is the only way. Biologically considering their own existence—not only spiritually and consciously, but also biologically—they place their own existence together with other species for consideration. That is to say, there is no basic competition between species.
Let me give an example from a video I recently watched. A woman who dives—actually she cannot really be called a girl anymore; she may already be 40, I do not know—has been diving for 26 years. In those 26 years, for 25 of them she has been helping sharks remove the especially large fishhooks from their bodies or mouths, hooks specifically used for shark fishing.
It was one year after she began diving that she happened to discover a shark with a fishhook in its mouth, and she tried to help remove it. That shark was especially grateful to her. The next time she went diving, that shark actually called its friends over, bringing several others that all had fishhooks in their mouths, and she removed them one by one. This matter seemed to spread throughout the shark world—that there was someone there helping everyone remove fishhooks—so every so often at the place where she dives, there would always be some sharks coming to her with fishhooks. Some hooks were visible on the outside, but some hooks were already deep inside the sharks' mouths. Once, a shark's hook was deep inside its mouth, and she hesitated for a moment, then reached her hand into the shark's mouth to remove it. You know how sharp a shark's teeth are, but she dared to reach her hand in. Removing the hook is very painful; the hook is caught in the mouth, yet that shark did not bite her. She could feel the pressure of the shark's teeth pressing against her arm, but it never bit down.
There is video of this; you can search for it online. Over the years she has removed several hundred hooks, and she keeps all the removed hooks as mementos. The most amazing thing is the relationship between these sharks and her; that kind of intimate relationship is hard to describe in words—they just lie there quietly and let her stroke them, resting their heads and mouths against her. This kind of cross-species inner cooperation truly exists. This video is very good; see if you can find it, and if so, let everyone feel this kind of relationship between sharks and humans.
When you think that we humans and other species are in competition, then you are misreading nature; it is a misunderstanding of nature. Nature is not like that; nature is cooperative.
Regardless of what man's conscious beliefs may be, on a biological level his genetic structure is intimately related to all other species.
No matter what your scientific knowledge teaches you, your existence as the human species—your genes are intimately related to the genes of other species. This is something humans have not thought of. Humans think their genes are just their own genes, automatically replicating according to their own genetic rules; they have never thought that we humans as a species are actually also influenced by the genes of other species. Our genetic structure is related to other species, and this relationship is embodied in a cooperative relationship, not a competitive one.
The possibilities of its development within humanity are truly endless.
From the perspective of human development, the possibilities of this development cannot be calculated; no computer can calculate how many combinations of these possibilities there are.
So what is extremely important?
Our human species, in order to maintain our flexibility, does not become locked into any one pattern, no matter how advantageous that pattern may be. And I am speaking of physical and mental patterns.
We humans are not pursuing a most advantageous mental or physical pattern. For example, a physical pattern would be pursuing an extreme expression of genes—everyone tall, strong, and handsome, with flawless physique and health. That is not what humanity pursues. If you think that is what humanity pursues, then you are greatly mistaken. But what our scientists are currently studying is exactly this direction. Scientists are now studying every day how to manufacture a perfect gene, removing all disease segments, so that humans can live forever healthy and happy.
Including mental patterns—genes also influence our mental patterns, of course they do. That is why some people are cheerful, some are extroverted, and some are introverted. He says that whether it is physical or psychological patterns, we humans will not pursue a most advantageous state; what we pursue is always its diversity, the endlessness of its possibilities.
There is no perfect genetic form or genetic structure that we humans need. If there were a kind of perfection that existed, a most perfect genetic pattern, that would only lead human development into a dead end, locking human development into a fixed pattern.
This fixed pattern, is it not good? Everyone has the optimal genes, the strong unite with the strong—is that not good? No. If you understand some knowledge of genetics and plant and animal hybridization, you will know: the closer and more homogeneous the genes, the more pitiful and unfortunate our offspring. Two of the most perfect genes, two flawless genes, do not produce better children, but worse ones. I do not know how to explain this to you; if you understand some basic genetics, you will know that the greater the genetic difference, the healthier humanity is. For the improvement of the entire gene pool and the health of humanity's genes as a whole, the greater the difference, the better.
So what does humanity pursue in the development and evolution of genes? Diversity. Intermarriage between races is very beneficial, very beneficial to the overall genetic development of humanity as a whole.
Within the established framework of human nature, there must be all kinds of margin.
This is what in computing we generally call "redundancy" or "surplus." The overall framework of humanity must have extra surplus things; it cannot develop to the extreme, doing everything to the best—that will not work.
Biological redundancy of activation, so that those variations can remain constantly active.
So-called biological redundancy is the same as data redundancy. Data redundancy means, for example, that my data is not stored on one hard drive, but on two or three hard drives. Human biological redundancy is the same: this gene must be expressed in many different possible ways, although some genes may not be used. Just like redundancy, your first hard drive is used often, and the second, third, and fourth hard drives behind it just sit there unused, but when the first hard drive fails, the later hard drives become useful.
What I am talking about is the basic concept; in fact, computer redundancy is far more advanced and complex than this, from RAID 0 all the way to RAID 5 and so on, but we will not go into detail. It ensures that if any hard drive fails, the data inside will not be lost; you just plug in a new hard drive and it will automatically recover. This is a scientific method in computing. The reason I give this example is actually to tell you a principle: these surplus genes normally do not show themselves, but when needed, they must come into play.
In order to ensure the activity and effectiveness of these genes themselves, in actual life certain characteristics of these genes must frequently be displayed biologically—what we see is that some people with genetic defects are born into our lives; this is its purpose.
Those genetic variations may be defects or some odd ones— we feel they are defects and oddities—they may appear to be somewhat disabling, and they may also appear to be one or another better characteristic, but this variation that branches off from the genetic standard must be biologically born.
"Biologically born" means it must be born; it must be materialized, given life, and made manifest. This variation may be bad, or it may be good; not necessarily. This biological redundancy is not necessarily all bad; there are also good times. But whether good or bad, by our human standards, they are all outside our standard humanity, so we will find them quite strange. But they must appear; otherwise they cannot be biologically born.
In themselves, regardless of whether those genetic variations appear to be better or more defective, different adaptability, alterations of subjective or physical focus, and the strengthening of other abilities that might otherwise be ignored, all become necessary because of them.
This also includes the strengthening of those other abilities that we ignore; it is precisely because these variations exist that certain abilities we ordinarily ignore are strengthened. Different adaptability, alterations of subjective and physical focus, all cause certain abilities of ours to be strengthened without our knowing it.
Then the topic shifts:
However, even if we acknowledge all that has just been said, why do some individuals choose to experience such conditions as defects?
Seth means that, from the whole, we can understand that some genetic mutations, or what we call defects, are essential, for maintenance, for preservation. But from the individual's perspective, didn't you say earlier that individual value fulfillment cannot be weaker than this thing of humanity as a whole -- you cannot say, "For the development of humanity, I was forced to choose this." That is wrong. We just discussed this topic earlier.
So now Seth means: all right, from the whole we understand it, so let us talk about individual cases. Why would some individuals choose to appear in this way, with genetic defects or physical disabilities? If it is not for a larger goal -- that view is wrong -- then it is only for their own personal value fulfillment, so why would they choose such a kind of value fulfillment? That is the question he wants to ask. This is a good question.
On this point, we must examine some human feelings that we often forget.
Then see what Seth says next:
I have often said that suffering in itself is not good for the soul, nor is it a virtue.
This is what Seth has said. But:
Yet there is no doubt that many people seem to seek suffering.
This is very puzzling. Although suffering is not good for the soul, some people do not understand this principle. They care about it, they want to suffer. How can there be such people?
Suffering cannot be regarded as a distortion of emotion or a deformity of belief, and be excluded from human experience.
First, you cannot treat suffering as a deformed or wrong emotion, saying that suffering is always wrong. Once again, there is no right or wrong here. It is also one of the human emotions, just like pleasure. That is the first point.
Second, suffering is a human condition that people pursue for many different reasons. As one of the human emotions, some people want to experience this. Suffering has many different levels, and each person has his own definition of what suffering is -- what is suffering to some people may not be suffering to others. That is a difference in definition.
Many people do equate a certain kind of pain with excitement.
For example, athletes, race car drivers, mountain climbers, all seek pain to some degree, and find a certain intensity of pain itself comfortable. You could say they like living dangerously. Many of us cannot understand those race car drivers -- including Schumacher, who had so many accidents and was in a coma for years a while back. And mountain climbers -- every year we see them get into accidents. These people, they enjoy a certain degree of suffering, and they feel it is a kind of enjoyment.
Some schools will believe that spiritual realization is the result of physical pain.
Some ascetic schools believe that only through suffering can your bodily desires be reduced to the lowest level, and only then can you attain spiritual realization. This itself is wrong, but they themselves believe it. So the pain they inflict becomes a kind of pleasure for them -- they do not feel it as pain; they feel it is a necessary path on the road to spirituality, so they find it very pleasurable.
People often say that animals and humans both want to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, and therefore any pursuit of pain, except in certain circumstances, is regarded as unnatural behavior.
We humans think pursuing pleasure and enjoyment is normal, and pursuing pain is abnormal. This view is also wrong -- some people just want to pursue pain. There are all kinds of people, and you cannot generalize.
All these views show distinctions in very subtle ways. This view is one that many people will ask about, so we must very seriously understand the correct perception of suffering itself -- just like the concept I mentioned earlier, it is very subtle.
The pursuit of pain is unnatural; it is a strange behavior pattern.
See, he reverses it again. One moment he says it one way, the next moment he says it the other way. So is this suffering, this pursuit of suffering, natural or unnatural?
Many children daydream, not only of being kings or queens, or of being given great glory, but they also daydream of being tragic figures; they daydream of cruel deaths.
Many children do this. They delight in stories of wicked stepmothers, like Snow White's stepmother, who was extremely vicious. In fact, they imagine every kind of situation involving human experience as much as they can -- they think about all the possibilities, including suffering. To some degree, adults do the same thing.
Because they are attracted to movies and television shows that involve tragedy, sorrow, and great dramatic struggles.
We all know that the great works are tragedies. Very rarely does a comedy become a famous classic; most classics are tragedies. Why? People want to watch others suffer, to experience others' suffering.
This is also because you are alive as a result of your great curiosity about human experience.
We live in order to be curious. If we cannot experience suffering ourselves, then watching stories of others experiencing suffering -- does that not also enrich our experience and our own experience? So sometimes those especially painful stories actually attract more viewers.
You live because you want to participate in the human drama.
And in drama there are joys and sorrows; you certainly have to experience these tragic things.
Seeing this, you may be a bit confused: are you saying the pursuit of pain is natural or unnatural? Is it reasonable or unreasonable? At this point you need to have your own judgment; you cannot listen to Seth on everything. If your judgment is consistent with his or not, you need to look at your own thoughts.
I admit that many people will disagree with my view, but I know from experience that most people do not choose one happy life after another, forever dwelling in sound bodies, endowed by nature or heredity with all the gifts that most people seem to think they desire.
Seth says, from my experience, I am not speaking theoretically, I am speaking from experience: many people, when choosing lives in reincarnation, indeed did not choose the kind of happy life that most of us think of; they chose a tragic life. I tell you from my experience that there really are such people.
Each person is pursuing his value fulfillment, and that means they choose various lives in such a way that all their abilities and talents can be developed as much as possible, and in such a way that their world is also enriched.
So-called value fulfillment means they have the freedom to choose the life they want to live -- including tragic, sorrowful, suffering ones -- so that all their abilities and talents can be developed as much as possible. Why would they do this? Because it can enrich experiences they did not have before.
Some people will deliberately choose defective bodies in order to focus more intensely on other areas.
They make one part defective, and actually make another part stronger. They want a different focus, different from normal people. For example, some people have intellectual disabilities, but are especially good at arithmetic. You see, that is very strange.
They want to filter their characteristics through a certain pattern.
They use this kind of physical defect to filter out some characteristics they do not want.
Such a choice requires an intensification, and that intensification is familial, on the part of the individual and on the part of the parents. Therefore a certain group of people will relate to the world in an extremely characteristic way.
This kind of congenital deformity affects not only the child himself, but also his parents, his parents and his family. This influence is produced on this group of people -- including his classmates, the friends he will know later, all will relate to the world in this particular way because his disability is different from others, in a way different from other people.
In almost all such instances, such people will also engage in subjective issues or questions that might otherwise not be considered.
In such instances, these people will be stimulated to raise certain philosophical questions, questions that he would not consider when he was healthy. What is written here is subjective issues and questions, referring to those questions of his subjective thinking and personal feelings, questions that would not be raised in his normal physical state.
They will ask questions that must be asked, as far as they themselves are concerned.
Because everyone is different, and everyone's state is different, so everyone must ask his own questions. And these questions are asked not only for himself, but also for the whole of human society. For example, if he is born disabled, he will certainly be excluded by society, unable to get a normal job or whatever. Then he will ask: why are we disabled people not cared for by society, or treated equally? These questions would absolutely never be asked when he was a normal person. And when these questions are asked by a disabled person, they are actually asked not only for him, but also for the whole of human society -- how should our whole human society care for these vulnerable groups, how should we regard these vulnerable groups.
We often have a saying: the degree to which a society cares for its vulnerable groups depends on the degree of that society's civilization. These views are actually all expressed through such questions, and they can exactly reflect the values of this society and the current state of the whole society.
Those questions help bring about a psychological maturity and insight in the general nature of humanity.
These questions make people mature, make the whole of humanity mature.
Many such situations are also used to allow human compassion to continue to exist.
Because of the existence of these disabled people, our compassion can continue to exist. We all know that our roads have tactile paving, specially prepared for the blind. In American parking lots, the parking spaces for disabled people are large and wide, specially placed in the most convenient locations. And disabled people in America can drive; there are special regulations for disabled people taking driving tests, ensuring that they can obtain a driver's license under safe conditions. This is something many people in other countries and regions cannot understand. This is their special care for disabled people -- disabled people receive priority treatment in America.
I make a distinction between compassion and pity. Because a lively compassion leads to constructiveness, to the use of abilities, even to social discourse, while pity is numbing.
A good compassion makes the whole society think, and at the same time has a constructive orientation, developing existing abilities, leading the whole society toward progress. Pity is not like that; pity carries numbness and indifference -- "I pity you," but that is all. Pity carries a condescending attitude from above toward those below; compassion means I can feel your pain as my own, I can put myself in your shoes, and I also want to do something for you, I want to improve your situation. That is called compassion.
Your over-reliance upon physical standards, and your distorted concepts of the survival of the fittest, certainly help to exaggerate the existence of any genetic defects.
Because you have an excessive standard regarding the view of survival of the fittest and what the body should be like, you will exaggerate and distort any genetic defect.
Again, many religious dogmas consider such conditions to be the result of divine punishment.
There are also some religious dogmas that consider this kind of genetic defect to be divine punishment upon you.
The survival of humanity depends far more upon their subjective activities than upon their physical activities.
This passage is very important. That is, the behavior of your subjective activities is responsible for your physical actions. How to understand this? Subjective actions are your feelings, experiences, thoughts, intentions, purposes -- these are all subjective; physical actions are the feelings and experiences of the body. What it means here is that your subjective actions are more important -- your subjective feelings are the most important. If you feel that something is painful, then it is painful; if you feel it is not, then it is not. Although there are some universal standards of pain, in many matters this varies from person to person.
What we humans pursue should be subjective feelings and subjective experiences, not putting the feelings and experiences of the body first. This passage may be hard to understand; I will give an example and it will be clear. What example? There is a kind of cold called "your mother thinks you are cold." Your mother starts from physical feelings and says, the weather is so cool now, you should put on long underwear or thermal pants. But do any of today's young men and women want to wear long underwear, thermal pants, or padded pants? No. So he does not feel cold. Whether he is cold or not is not important; you cannot use your mother's standard to measure it. According to your mother's view, you are certainly cold; according to your own standard, you are not cold, because you are willing to show your legs for others to see, and you think this is very beautiful and good-looking, and this outweighs your feeling of cold.
So this passage is meant to make you understand: we are all responsible for our subjective behavior, not for our physical behavior. Remember this; it is a characteristic. We humans are just like this.
Science looks at it in another way.
Science looks at it from another angle, as if your physical activities were the result of the mechanical, formalized behavior of a robot.
Your human being is a robot miraculously set in motion by the blind factors of an accidentally formed accidental universe, produced by chance from the Big Bang.
Scientists believe that this robot was set to survive at the expense of anyone or anything, and that it has no true consciousness of its own. Scientists believe that humans were produced by chance like robots, but the only mission of this robot is to make itself live longer, and even to reproduce itself; apart from that there is no other meaning. That is how scientists understand humans.
His thoughts are only mental mirages.
But this robot has thoughts -- we humans have thoughts. Scientists say those thoughts are not important; they are all mental mirages, with no real meaning. So if one of its parts is broken or defective, then obviously the problem is serious -- for a robot, if a part is broken, then it is certainly a defective product.
But human beings are not robots, and every so-called genetic defect also has an inner role to play in the entire picture of genetic reality.
The genetic defects you think of actually have a certain role to play within the vast scope of genetic reality.
The uncertainty principle must also operate in genetics.
The uncertainty principle is a core theory of quantum mechanics, proposed by Heisenberg1. It means you cannot simultaneously determine the position and momentum of a quantum-level object; you can only measure one, not both at the same time. Hence it is called the uncertainty principle. So here he uses this name. The uncertainty principle should be applied to genetics -- we can never know exactly how genes will express; we can only know their general tendencies.
What the uncertainty principle ultimately calculates is also a probability. Quantum mechanics as a whole is a study of probability -- the probability of such an event occurring can be calculated, but when it comes to a specific individual, it cannot be determined. This is very similar to genes: we can calculate the probability of a certain tendency of this gene, but we cannot accurately say that if a person has such a gene expression, he will definitely get this disease. We can only say the probability of getting this disease is very high, not that he definitely will.
Otherwise, as a species, you would be locked into over-specialization.
Without genetic uncertainty, we humans would become a very specialized gene, unable to get out of the genetic pattern. Because there would be no change, no accidents, no surprises -- and without surprises there would be no development.
There are various states of consciousness, one within another, yet each connected.
There are many kinds of states of consciousness, and each is connected. So the genetic system is actually a system of consciousness -- he raises the genetic system to a higher level again. States of consciousness are all connected to one another, so your genes themselves, this genetic system, can also be regarded as a system of consciousness. This is easy to understand: all things in the world are composed of units of consciousness, so of course the genetic system is also composed of consciousness.
The genetic system is interwoven with the reincarnational system of consciousness.
If the genetic system itself is also a system of consciousness, then this genetic system and the reincarnational system of consciousness should have intersections, intertwined together.
These in turn are entangled with the consciousness that you know.
Your reincarnational system of consciousness, your genetic system, and your present ego consciousness system in this life are intertwined together. These three are entangled together, and the present moment is the point of power. The entanglement itself is not important; this point in the present can resolve these issues.
Since you have your present genetic structure, your conscious intents and purposes become the trigger that activates whatever genetic or reincarnational factors you need.
Your present genetic structure, each individual's genetic structure, is itself tightly entangled with the reincarnational system of consciousness and the present system of consciousness. Then your conscious purposes and intents become the trigger of this gene -- this trigger is the trigger. It will activate what you need, whether biological (genetic means biological) or spiritual (that is, some potential abilities from your reincarnations), you can obtain them all. You can use your conscious purposes and intents to trigger this genetic change, and thereby bring to you -- whether from biology or from the potentials gained from your reincarnational experiences -- all of them will be stimulated for you.
The dreaming state provides the connecting links between these systems of consciousness.
This time he mentions dreams. The dreaming state provides the connecting links between these systems of consciousness. What do these systems of consciousness include? First, your genes are a system of consciousness; then your genetic system of consciousness, your present system of consciousness, and your system of consciousness from so many reincarnations are all entangled together. So how do they operate? Dreams are the important link in between; dreams are the link connecting these systems of consciousness. Therefore sometimes healing in dreams, sudden realizations in dreams, knowledge obtained in dreams -- all these things are possible.
Then he says, the dictation is over. Do you have any questions? Rob said directly:
Rob said, I think some of the material you gave tonight, about focus and the body's condition, sounds like Jane's own situation -- her stiffness and walking problems. Rob said, these things you mentioned, including congenital disabilities or illnesses, why do they sound like they are about Jane? Because Jane has this problem of physical stiffness and inability to walk. Is he saying that Jane's condition is also caused by heredity or genes?
At this point Seth stared at Rob for a long while without speaking. Why? Because Seth said, are you asking me to comment, or is what you just said merely a statement of yours? Rob said both -- it is both my opinion and my view, and I also want you to comment on it.
Then Seth said:
Ruburt's condition has no particular genetic connection.
Jane's matter has nothing to do with genes; it is not caused genetically. Of course, that type of process could also occur -- what does that mean? That is, although Jane's problem is not caused by genes, from a certain angle, if Jane's thoughts or wishes were strong enough, they really could lead to some genetic changes. But he emphasizes again that it is not a genetic issue; it is not that Jane's will or intent caused genetic mutations that made her body so stiff and unable to walk. It has nothing to do with that.
In Ruburt's case, he is involved with patterns of behavior, chosen for purposes of intensification.
Jane's condition is mainly a problem of behavior patterns; a certain behavior pattern of his led to his present illness. What kind of behavior pattern? Chosen for purposes of intensification -- he wanted to intensify something. Jane's mother, and to a large degree, Jane's father also had some similar behavior problems. Jane has such a behavior pattern problem; Jane's mother had such a behavior pattern problem; Jane's father also had such a behavior pattern problem. Remember, he is talking about behavior pattern problems, not physical problems. But because they all had such behavior pattern problems, similar symptoms were reflected in their bodies. Jane's mother had exactly the same illness as Jane; she also became unable to move in her thirties, even earlier than Jane. Jane began to feel unwell in her body starting around her forties.
In Ruburt's case, we are still dealing with function -- an impaired function, not the result of genes.
Seth emphasizes again: Jane's problem is mainly a problem of function, and has nothing to do with genes.
You may tell Ruburt that the end does not justify the means.
He said this with humor, but this sentence is very important. This passage is very important. He said that in his personal case it is no exception.
The earliest source of this sentence was in The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, at the end when he talked about "being a practical idealist," he mentioned one point: the most essential difference between a fanatic and a practical idealist is that a fanatic, because of his lofty ideals, disregards the unreasonableness of any means in doing things -- doing anything for the end, regardless of the means. This is not acceptable. This is a very dangerous belief that can easily turn an idealist into a fanatic -- for a lofty goal, one can do anything regardless of the means.
So when you judge whether a country, an individual, or a government is fanatical, you look at whether, in doing things, they are willing to do anything regardless of the means for a more noble or greater goal. If so, then they are fanatical.
Why does he talk about Jane's problem? Jane's personal problem is the same; this is a principle -- the end cannot justify the means.
What is still important is to love, to protect, to cherish, and to express your body.
Jane did not do these things. Why did Jane not do them? Because Jane thought he was doing a very great thing, transmitting the Seth material. He thought transmitting the Seth material was an extremely important matter, so under this great ideal and goal, he could neglect loving his body, not protect his body, not cherish his body, not express his body. He even regarded all favorable treatment of the body as a waste of time -- no vacations, no rest, even taking a nap would make him blame himself for a long time. Think about it: how could such a person's body be well?
So here Seth emphasizes again, pointing out Jane's problem with piercing accuracy: do not think that because you are doing a great thing, you can ignore the love and protection of the body in the specific means. These words are very penetrating. But how much Jane could understand, I am not sure. From the actual situation, he still maintained his original behavior patterns and did not make any major changes. Seth had already spoken to this extent, and he still remained the same.
Do you understand what he meant? That earlier sentence -- "chosen for purposes of intensification" -- this "purpose of intensification" means Jane's purpose in life was too strong; in order to achieve this purpose in life, he would do anything regardless of the means, and so he sacrificed his physical health. Can we see many such people in our lives? All kinds of people: they first set a goal, then intensify this goal, then tell themselves that in order to achieve this goal they can do anything regardless of the means -- and this "regardless of the means, regardless of the cost" includes the cost of body and health. So in the end, who else would get sick if not him? Because he holds such a belief: do anything for the end, regardless of the means.
So here Seth is reminding everyone:
End of session, and good evening.
This last sentence also applies to those with disabilities and genetic impairments. It is useful not only for Jane, but also for those with physical disabilities, for those with genetic impairments, and even more so for us ordinary people, the general public. We cannot, because of intensifying our goals, neglect the body's needs for rest, entertainment, and relaxation -- your grand goal suppresses and excludes all of these, and that is not acceptable.
After Jane came out, she said that near the end, there was something she did not fully transmit, which was the material about the end justifying the means -- Seth did not want people to apply that to genetic impairments.
What is the purpose he ultimately places on genetic disability? What he wants to say is this: those who have genetic disabilities have them because they wanted to achieve a particular purpose, and in order to achieve that purpose they did not hesitate to choose to disable a certain part of the body, to experience and feel that thing. He says this is unnecessary. He points out to those people: you cannot say that for the sake of a larger goal -- you cannot even say that for the sake of the goal of all humanity, I will sacrifice myself -- none of this is necessary.
But what he wants to say even more is this: no matter what you choose, from the perspective of the whole, this choice of yours is a need of your personal value -- you want to experience this, so your choice will be respected. Although this choice, from an ordinary perspective, may be a difficult life, you like it -- provided that you like it. But after many people are born, they forget that this was something they themselves chose; they do not like it, and they become angry and give up on themselves.
So what Seth is saying here is this: from the perspective of the whole, it is your own choice, but from the perspective of individuality, you do not need to choose this way -- you cannot say that you chose this for the sake of something. There is a dialectical relationship in this. And then you will say that these two viewpoints are contradictory. But if you can see that these seemingly opposite viewpoints are not contradictory, then you can actually understand what Seth is trying to say. If you see them as wrong and contradictory, then you still have not understood it.
Then Note 1 talks about the uncertainty principle, and I will not expand on this. The uncertainty principle is that you cannot simultaneously measure the position and motion of elementary particles with accuracy. In this book, Seth uses the uncertainty principle as an analogy, and it is an excellent analogy -- the position and motion of elementary particles cannot be measured simultaneously, so our genetic characteristics and motion also cannot be forever accurately determined.
In this book he also said that between genetic accuracy and genetic freedom in humanity, there is an astonishing interaction. It does not operate like a system the way we imagine, there is a great deal of leeway in it. Your genetic structure responds to every thought you have, to your emotional states, and to your psychological climate, and choice and probability also apply here. Therefore we are able to avoid genetic rigidity.
This is from the previous session, and we have already explained all of this, so I will not say more. The content on this part ends here.
I wish everyone a magical and beautiful day.
注释与核实
-
Source: Lars Brink, "Forces" (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/forces) ↩