The "Reading Guide" and "Chapter Highlights" 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 parts Mike read aloud).
Introduction
In this session, Jane repeatedly thought of a friend visiting, and the friend indeed wrote to say she was coming. Seth uses this experience to explain the inner process behind major events. Seth points out that such thoughts are not coincidence or precognition, but arise from an inner perceptual mechanism within the scope of intention, like a psychological radar, which is noticed as the event draws near. A person thus steps into and participates in the formation of events, and can influence their direction. All events operate in this way, and value fulfillment is the purpose.
Key Points of This Chapter
- The inner processes of major events usually go unnoticed, but they surface in the form of intense and persistent thoughts and the like.
- A person has an inner perceptual mechanism that operates within the range of intention, like a psychological radar, capable of sensing approaching related events.
- What seem to be coincidences or precognitive impressions are actually cases in which a person has already stepped into and participated in the formation of the event, and can influence the nature and direction of the event through response.
- Every event in life operates in a similar inner manner; subjective intention and objective occurrence are two sides of one whole.
- Value fulfillment is the purpose of all events; the answers to personal challenges and problems are already prepared at the subjective level, readily available.
Main Text
The Inner Process of Main Events: Jane's Psychic Experience
This session began at 8:50 p.m. on Tuesday, August 4, 1981.
Rob first said that after Seth delivered Session 931 for this book three weeks earlier, there were five private sessions in between. Among these five private sessions, only one discussed general material about Jane's "guilty self." Lately Jane has felt much better in certain respects — you see, once that "guilty self" of his was dragged out into the open, things got a lot better.
On the last day of July they received the proof copy of If We Live Again1. Compared with her other books, Jane found proofreading this one much easier. This afternoon they had a very long discussion. About what? It was about the natural wish for creative privacy that they both enjoy — whether Rob paints, writes poetry, or channels Seth material with Jane, essentially none of it is something they particularly want more people to know about — and the constant conflict between that and the fact that their work flows out into the world. On the one hand they want their work to be recognized by others or promoted, because they feel it is good; on the other hand they actually do not want to be disturbed by others, and want to quietly enjoy a private space. There is a certain contradiction in the middle of this.
Both of them feel a strong sense of responsibility toward the people who read their books. This also involves that part of Jane's "guilty self," which was already discussed at length in the previous session, so I will not repeat it. And her attitude toward radio and television interviews, lectures, records, tapes, and other demands that Jane face the public — now you know why, from the time the Seth material appeared in America in the 1970s until now, there has been very little media promotion of it? One main reason is that Jane did not accept these interviews, and she also did not record, did not make tapes, did not do television interviews, did not lecture, did not do radio.
According to the way we say it now, if Jane had done these things, in that era she would definitely have been a top-tier internet celebrity, top-tier — in today's popular terms, absolutely top-tier. If a person makes good use of the media, it is very beneficial to the promotion and advancement of the Seth material. But because of this "guilty self," he blocked all of it. Why? Because he felt that it was already sinful for her to create and to do these things, so how could he go around promoting and publicizing them and letting others know? In other words, the fewer people who knew about her work, the happier that "guilty self" actually was inside — this is also why, every time one of Jane's books was published, Jane's illness grew more severe. One can imagine that if she had accepted these interviews and put herself out there doing this kind of social media interviews, then her illness would have become even more severe. So her "guilty self" blocked all of it.
Many years ago she stopped paying attention to media attention. She only accepted a few media interviews in the very early period, and after that she no longer accepted any media interviews. Rob said that it was only quite some time after Jane began transmitting the Seth material that he came to realize that although Jane was outgoing and friendly by nature, she was actually a person who liked private conversation just as much as he did. This was something Rob only understood many years later: Jane seemed outgoing, but actually she was also a person who was unwilling to deal with society and the media.
Jane's Impressions: A Visit That Was About to Happen
Then Seth came through. Seth said:
Regarding your discussion, I will have something to say in the next session. But in this session, I will not discuss that issue for now; let us continue to clarify the main events.
Again, the main events are those that most deeply affect your system of reality, even though the original actions are not physical, but occur in the inner dimensions.
Again, the main events are those that have the greatest impact, even if they do not have a physical occurrence -- they are only in your mind, only in your thoughts, or in a latent state, which we generally say is in Framework 2.
But most events appear in time as well as outside of time.
What are the "most events" mentioned here? They are the different time versions of those main events, which is a concept he raised in the previous session: time overlays. These different time versions correspond to different events, occurring in different times and outside of time.
Remember, in time and outside of time, their actions are distributed across a range of inner and outer expression.
These actions are the different versions of the main events, representing different actions. They have inner expression and also outer expression, widely distributed between the outermost expression and the innermost expression.
Usually you are aware only of the outer core of an event, while the inner process remains unknown to you.
We humans generally see the occurrence of outer events and find the outer core of an event, but as for how the event occurs inwardly, as for that process, we actually do not know.
Those inner processes, however, also give many clues about the innate abilities that you as a species have used in the past.
Those inner processes sometimes really do surface. The following is an example.
This ability, you humans had it in early times, and you have always had it, but you may have simply overlooked it.
The example he gave is this: Last weekend, in the morning, Ruburt found himself suddenly and vividly thinking of some married friends -- actually two of them -- who lived outside the city, less than half an hour's drive from where they now lived. Ruburt found himself wishing those friends lived closer, and he was suddenly filled with the desire to see them. He imagined that couple in their house, and to his own amazement he thought that perhaps in a little while he really could call and invite them to come over that evening -- even though he and Joseph had both already decided that they would not have guests that weekend.
What is more, Ruburt did not like the idea of inviting people so hastily. He did not like inviting people on the same day -- in America, you always have to arrange far in advance when I will come visit you; it is rare to have the kind of thing that happens in China, where on the same day you say "I am coming over to see you now." This kind of thing does happen, but the probability is very low, and Ruburt in particular was even less willing to do this kind of thing.
Then he became aware that those particular thoughts were intrusive. What does intrusive mean? It means they suddenly came in -- suddenly he wanted to see a certain friend. We usually also have this kind of impulse, this kind of intuition or impression; this thought in the mind suddenly pops up, it suddenly pops up. It was completely unrelated to the thoughts he had immediately before -- this thought of "wanting to see someone" had no connection at all to what he had been thinking about before. It was not that he saw something, or saw their photograph, or remembered some shared experience, and then suddenly thought of this person. There was no connection. When he said "intrusive," this is what he meant: a thought suddenly popping up.
And just a little while before, he had been congratulating himself, precisely because for that whole day he had made no plans at all for guests or any other such activities. Jane said, before this thought, she had been feeling very glad that she had no plans for friends to visit that weekend; she felt very happy, very glad, and then suddenly she had a thought of wanting to see a friend. Soon she forgot the whole thing -- the thought passed, she thought about it for a moment and then it passed.
But about fifteen minutes later, she found that the same thought came back again, and this time it was more insistent. We also often have this feeling -- a thought passes, and then after a while it suddenly comes back again, and this time you want to see this person even more. These thoughts lasted about five minutes; Ruburt thought about wanting to see this person for a full five minutes. Ruburt noticed them, and then forgot them again; she went back to her work. However, this time she decided not to call her friends, and to continue doing her own things -- although this time the feeling was stronger and the desire was stronger, she still decided not to call, and continued working.
About half an hour later, that same thought came back again, this was the third time. Again there was this strong thought of wanting to invite the friends over. Ruburt found himself feeling very amazed at this -- she herself found it strange, how in this one morning she had thought of this friend three times in a row, and especially wanted to see him. She told Joseph the whole thing, and once again put it out of her mind. After saying it, she did not call, nor did she do anything; she continued with her work.
By this time it was already a little later, already noon. Ruburt and Joseph were eating lunch, and at that moment their mail arrived. Among it was a letter written the day before -- that is, Friday morning -- by the very couple who had been so lingering in Ruburt's mind. Letters within the same city in America generally arrive the next day2; a letter sent today arrives the next day, if you live very close within the same city. Then she received this letter, and this letter happened to be from the couple she had been wanting to see, wanting to invite them over. Just like that, miraculously, the letter came.
The letter said that they were going out on a trip, that they were going out on Saturday, and they specifically asked whether they could come over that same afternoon -- that is, when they went out on Saturday, they would stop by on the way to visit them. From the way the letter was written, that couple -- Pete and Polly -- seemed to have already set out on Saturday morning. According to what the letter said, it was written on Friday, telling them that on Saturday they were going out on a trip, and then they would stop by to visit them. But by the time this letter was received, it was already Saturday noon. According to the meaning in the letter, they had set out early Saturday morning, and would come to Elmira on the way back in the evening -- of course there was no time to reply to that letter, because they had already left; there was no way to write back. Pete and Polly apparently should already have been on the road, and could not be reached by telephone. At that time there were no cell phones; you could not contact them on the road. Although they had written their telephone service number in the letter, left their phone number, and also said they would call before leaving home -- yet they did not receive such a call.
Of course, it would not be unacceptable to attribute Ruburt's thoughts and feelings to coincidence. If you say this was just a coincidence, that is fine too; then it might be a kind of coincidence. But she remembered the vividness of what she felt at the time -- Ruburt felt this was not a coincidence, because three times that morning she had thought of this friend, and the feeling was so vivid and lifelike, that feeling of especially wanting to see them, of absolutely having to see them. It seemed that Pete and Polly really would come; this feeling was especially strong, almost as if Ruburt had in fact called and invited them over.
And that evening they really did come. In fact, some things had hindered that couple, so that they did not leave when they had wanted to leave. However, a little later they called from their home, saying that they were just about to go out on their trip, and that on the way they would come to visit. Actually something had happened; they did not leave early Saturday morning, but left a while later; and before leaving, he did call Rob and Jane, saying that they were going out, and then would stop by to visit them. By that time, Ruburt had long been mentally prepared for that call and for the visitors -- having gone through this letter and so much mental preparation.
The Inner Perceptual Mechanism: Your Intent Is the Tuner
Seth says that the visit event, along with Ruburt's earlier feelings and thoughts, was part of the same event—except that her subjective experience gave her clues to the inner process by which all events happen.
This visit event was one version of a main event, and Ruburt just happened to sense some clues of its inner process. This is very interesting. Think about the timing: on Saturday morning she suddenly felt and thought that her friend was coming, and Saturday morning was exactly the process in which her friend was about to leave, had not yet left, and was delayed by something. In the middle of this, she thought of it three times, so there was a connection through her inner process.
Seth says that what was involved was not just this question—what question? That is, whether she perceived the information directly from her friend's mind, or from the letter itself? Of course, at that time the letter had already been mailed and was already on its way to Ruburt's hands. The letter was already on its way with the mail carrier.
What happened was an inner backbone of perception, a supporting program behind it. An inner perceptual mechanism with its own precise psychological tuner, operating more or less within the range of your intent.
That is to say, you have an inner perceptual system, but this inner perceptual mechanism operates within the range of your intent and is related to your intent. Whatever your intent wants to be interested in, you are especially sensitive to those things; when your intent is not interested in them, your sensitivity in that area is not keen. So the psychological tuner is only interested in those things that its inner intent is focused on.
It is somewhat like a joystick, or like an internal radar device operating within a psychological range of attention. When something that concerns you, when some event comes into the nearer range of the possibility of your connection with it, you become aware of its existence to some degree.
It is as if you have a small radar in your mind. When an event connected with you begins to approach you, begins to be about to happen, this small radar in your mind can receive that information. This "approaching" refers to the event's approach to you, not the physical distance of the person, but the approach of the event's occurrence.
In a certain way, at that level you stepped into that world.
When you receive it with your radar, you have already stepped into that event, and that event already has a certain connection and interaction with you. Things too far away you cannot sense either, because the radar has a range; your radar does not reflect everything back.
You see, if in a certain sense, everything in this world is connected with everything else—broadly speaking, there is interconnectedness between any things and events. But this interconnectedness can be strong or weak; some are directly connected with you, some may be indirectly connected with you. For those that are relatively close to you, directly connected, when the matter is about to happen, your inner self can perceive it. When you perceive it, you have already begun to step into that world.
As for exactly how you step in, at this point you have a great deal of autonomy, you have a great deal of free will. You can also ignore it, you can also choose to avoid it, you can also choose to respond strongly, you can also choose to respond coolly—it depends on how you interact with this event; you have already made contact with it.
Then you accept or exclude it as a possibility.
You can accept this event as a possibility, and then you do the corresponding thing, and then it happens. For example, if Jane had received this signal in the morning and directly called them, accepting it as a possibility, then this matter would have begun to happen. But she did not call, and the matter still happened—because the couple later called her. Whether or not she called, the two of them had already made up their minds to visit Jane. In this matter, whether Jane agreed or not was not important—although Jane also very much wanted to see them, the two of them had already made up their minds to visit Jane.
You make some adjustment, or perhaps change some particular detail.
You can make certain adjustments, such as calling or not calling, and so on, which may make some small adjustments to this matter, but it is also possible that there is no change. But to say there is no change at all is also not right, because your state of mind has also changed. Calling this time and not calling are also different—if you made the call, the other party would say, "I was just about to visit you, how come you suddenly called to invite me over," and then such a stronger coincidence would make both couples even more excited, and this effect of mutual understanding and telepathy would be stronger; but if you do not make the call, it is just like an ordinary friend going out to visit an old friend. So this change may not make a great difference to the visit itself, but it still makes a certain degree of difference.
But you stepped into and became part of that inner process.
That is, you entered, and you became part of this event. As for this visit, whether you call or not, or whether you perceive it or not, you have become part of this event.
Before this event became a definite physical certainty, you influenced its shape, size, and nature.
You can influence it—before it truly happens, after you sense it with your radar, you can adopt some responsive measures; or if you do not respond and directly ignore it, that is also fine—not responding is also a way of responding. So no matter which way you respond to this matter, you have participated in this event. And depending on your different feedback and the different actions you take, this matter will be influenced by you to some degree.
For many centuries, that was the main way people handled the events of their lives and of their tribes or villages.
For hundreds of years people used this method, or for thousands of years they used this method to handle relationships between people—between people and villages, between villages and villages, between tribes and tribes, they all communicated in this way.
Your modern methods of communication—our contemporary telephone, telegraph, internet—are in fact simulating or imitating your inner methods of communication.
Yes, we are imitating them. This is very interesting. For example, our current internet is even more like our inner method of communication. The telephone of the past was one kind; the telephone was also imitating, but the telephone was not quite so similar. For example, in America, telephone messages and voicemail are very important. In the past it was all tape; every household's telephone had a telephone answering machine, and this was a default service—if you did not have it, they would leave a message for you, so you did not need to worry about whether someone answered the other party's phone or not. If no one answered, you could leave a message, and when the other party came back they could hear it. But this service never became widespread in China; for a very long time China wanted to popularize this telephone voice function, but up to now it has not become widespread, and this is related to its cultural attributes and characteristics.
When it comes to the internet, it has these asynchronous communication tools, and also synchronous ones—for example, direct video calls and voice calls are called synchronous; asynchronous ones are the messages we send, you send it over, the other party receives it, but the other party may not necessarily read it immediately, but perhaps they are reading it right now, and then they can see it immediately. This is very much like our inner communication mechanism.
Ruburt's thoughts were almost merged in—to such a degree that they were quite difficult to detect or perceive. They were almost innocuous to such a degree that they were later accepted as coincidence.
Ruburt's feeling, that is, the feeling that they were going to visit—or not a feeling, Ruburt's thought of wanting to see them, wanting to invite them over to play—Seth says it was so subtly merged into the whole event that it seemed to become some kind of coincidence. We are all like this; there are many coincidences like this in life, but we all treat them as coincidences.
However, Ruburt's thought did have an extra intensity, vitality, and strange persistence—unlike other people, her thought was very persistent and very strong. You see, she thought for a full five minutes, "Should I invite this person over as a guest?"—just this matter she could think about for five minutes, and you can imagine the intensity of that thought.
She had learned that this indicated the substance of unusual psychological activity.
She had learned, she knew that this kind of intuition, this kind of inspiration, must have its inner substantial occurrence. The substance of psychological activity is like a telepathic signal—like an electromagnetic signal, it is a material thing. Ruburt knew this; she had learned it.
Every Event in Life Works This Way
The point is that in most such instances, the subjective awareness of an approaching event flows into your attention so easily and transparently, and fits so smoothly with the events of the day, that it is not noticed.
The point is that when these things happen in our lives, they escape our notice so completely -- they flow into our lives like something transparent, into the process of the event's happening -- that we never realize this is a strange or special inner operating pattern of events. We treat it as a coincidence or an accidental phenomenon.
But what is actually going on? Our events all operate in this way. Seth picked out this particular event -- because this event was rather special, because there really was this telepathic impression, so Seth pointed it out. What he wants to point out is: all the events we ordinarily experience are like this, only it is more concealed -- these clues are more concealed, these hints are more concealed, and you simply do not notice their existence. But that does not mean they do not exist or are not operating.
Only they flow transparently into your attention. Without knowing it, you help to shape the nature and form of the event.
Without realizing it, the self helped bring about the event's occurrence, and yet you do not feel that you brought about the event; you think the event happened by chance. For example, when someone comes to visit you, you think it is a chance event, something the other person decided -- but you have actually forgotten that it happened because you wanted to see them, because your subjective intent brought the event about. And did they want to see you? Yes, they did; they also wanted to see you. The mutual cooperation of these two sides brought about the event.
Every event in your life comes about in this way, not just this one thing. This one was relatively special, and is used as an example -- but it tells us that the events of life are all like this, except that it is too ordinary, and too much of it flows transparently into your attention, so you simply cannot notice it. Internally, this is how it operates.
In other words, as to the occurrence of events -- including what the event finally shows in your life, in your living -- you participate in it; you assist it; you are a cooperating, joint mover. You are not a passive receiver who merely accepts events, except that sometimes you can be aware of it and sometimes you cannot.
In ignoring those occasions when those processes might have shown themselves.
Those processes could have shown themselves and let you see their inner connections, but you ignored them, so you cannot see how they work.
When this happens, you may ask whether it is possible that you actually sensed an action in advance. You would certainly ask: Did I have a premonition or foreknowledge that this couple was coming to visit me? Do I have precognitive ability? Later, some people may try more stubbornly than others to prove that some events were clearly perceived precognitively -- many people want to prove that you perceived it, that you have precognitive ability, that you foreknew it.
But what is the fact? Did you foreknow it? No, you did not foreknow it. You responded to the event, or you helped bring about the event -- in the occurrence of this event, you played a key role in it. It is not that you opened a celestial eye and foreknew it, or that through telepathy or some other means you remote-sensed that this event was going to happen -- no. From the beginning of the event's arising, from the event's brewing to its occurrence, it was related to you; you were participating in it, except that it depends on how far you could be aware of it.
And in this process, all of it can change -- the depth and intensity of your participation, and the attitude you take toward the matter, will affect the event's development and direction.
Yet the point is that all events are sensed beforehand. And you do step into an event, become part of it, reject or accept some version you receive, or work hard to make certain changes that affect the nature of the event itself.
Seth says that, in a certain sense, you should not try to prove whether you sensed the event's occurrence -- of course you sensed it; you sense every event. But the point here is not that you have this precognitive ability. Seth says the point I am making is not that you have precognitive ability; the point I am making is: when you sense this event, you step into the event, and you become part of the event -- this is the point I want to emphasize. You need to grasp the point.
Seth does not deny your perceptual ability, your ability to remote-sense. But this matter is not remote sensing -- it is not that this event was already fixed and going to happen, already determined to happen this way and could not be changed, and then you sensed the event. It is not like that. It is that when the event began to brew, it had many versions; from the beginning -- when the main event began to brew -- you sensed the existence of the event, and then you began to enter into the event. Of course you were unconscious of it, because it flowed transparently into your process, into the event, but whether conscious or unconscious, you took part in this, and through your response you took part in the event. And in the process of participation, you might reject certain events, or you might accept certain events; then rejecting or accepting some version you received -- both are possible. Or you might work hard to make certain changes that affect the nature of the event itself.
There are many examples of working hard to make changes that affect the nature of an event. For example, when we were little, we all had this experience: we broke something at home, broke a vase, and we were especially afraid our parents would know, afraid they would come home and beat us or punish us. Actually the matter was very small, but before the vase broke, you had a certain perception -- you said to yourself, "I must not break the vase and get beaten by my parents." You had some perception of it, more or less. After the vase broke, what would you do? You would think desperately, "Don't let my parents scold me, don't let them hit me, don't let them say anything." And then you would desperately keep thinking about the matter, right? The strange result was -- the thing you feared most did not happen; your parents did not reproach you. The terrible thing you feared did not occur; the parents just said lightly, in an offhand way, "Be more careful from now on," or something like that, and it passed.
With other matters, after something happened, you held a lucky mentality, saying, "It's really nothing, I probably won't be found out." As a result, certain things toward which you held this hoping-to-get-lucky attitude would instead provoke your parents' fury, and they would give you a harsh punishment. This is very interesting. Actually, when we were very young, our perceptual systems were all very sensitive, right?
So in the process of this event's occurrence, whether your parents gave you a beating or brushed it off lightly, including the matter of your breaking the vase and so on, you participated in the event throughout its process. You are not a passive person who can only receive the occurrence of some event.
Even the conscious mind, as to this structure of events, includes far more information than you possess.
Your conscious mind actually already knows the whole inner structure of how the event unfolds -- its various versions and various possibilities; it knows more than you know. Your conscious mind -- as discussed earlier in Seth Speaks -- spans two parts: a conscious part and an unconscious part. It knows both aspects; this is called the conscious mind.
All organized physical perceptual instruments carry their own kind of inner communication system. And before events take their seemingly final, definite, concrete occurrence in space and time, this allows events to operate on a worldwide basis.
What does he mean here by "organization"? It refers to all kinds of units of consciousness (CUs), the contents of units of consciousness, and different organizations -- in simple terms, all consciousness. It can all perceive; all consciousness has its own awareness system and perceptual system. In terms of physical perceptual tools, all consciousness has both nonphysical perceptual tools -- that is, the inner senses we talk about, and so on -- and physical perceptual tools, meaning the perceptual tools in our three-dimensional world, the bodily senses. To put it simply, our physical senses, or if other living beings, or other nonliving things, also have their material senses -- for example sensors or photoreceptors -- they all have their own inner communication system. In addition to their material senses, which are what we call the bodily senses -- eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body -- they also have a set of inner communication systems.
Before the event seems to finally manifest, finally appear, and finally happen in your world, in your physical world -- this event is allowed to operate on a very broad, worldwide level. Here "worldwide" refers to the level of the field of consciousness -- because the field of consciousness is worldwide in nature; it includes not only us humans but also our environment and everything around us, all of which exists within the field of consciousness. In other words, before an event truly happens, it is allowed a mutual communication and collaboration within the field of consciousness, to determine how the event will finally occur. It is not fixed; remember, it is the result of mutual consultation and mutual interaction.
Individually and globally, in a manner of speaking, value fulfillment is the purpose of all events.
Whether from the individual perspective or the global perspective, in a certain way -- what is value fulfillment? For you personally, all the events that happen to you have as their common purpose value fulfillment. For the globe as a whole, for the many things and many events that happen on this globe every day, the common purpose of these events is the value fulfillment of this globe. The purpose of all events is value fulfillment. He is discussing it from another angle.
He paused for a long while, then said:
Again, value fulfillment is the force that drives the wheel of nature.
It is the force that drives the movement of the whole world -- value fulfillment.
It may be said that, because your world indeed had its origin by floating out from the dream world.
Our world is indeed something that emerged from the dream world -- All That Is, he discussed earlier, in the earlier chapters of this book, floated out from the dream world. Therefore, the true root of all events lies hidden within this kind of subjective activity. This is the point he wants to emphasize: the subjective -- the subjectivity of events, and our subjective influence on events. In this session he is discussing just this.
The Subjective and the Objective: Two Sides of One Whole
He is saying that because the entire physical world has evolved out of and emerged from the dream world, and the dream world is entirely a subjective world, it is perfectly normal that your world exists within subjective activity -- because your physical world has emerged from the dream world, and the dream world is a subjective world, so it is perfectly normal that your physical world is also a subjective world. That is what he wants to say.
This session may not seem particularly striking on the surface, but it actually carries deep meaning: the events we see, which we believe all happen objectively, by chance, seemingly randomly and without any pattern -- they actually have an inner subjectivity at work within them. Remember, there is an inner subjectivity at work. Whether or not these events have their primary event with different time versions in our world -- first of all, that primary event is itself subjective, it is something from another world -- let us set that aside for now. Even something that appears to be an objectively existing, truly occurring physical-world event in our world, such as so-and-so meeting so-and-so, or so-and-so visiting someone -- even such seemingly objective events in the objective physical world have subjective intent behind them playing a major role in cooperation and facilitation. That is the main point he wants to make in this session.
And the answers to personal challenges and problems are ever at your fingertips, and ready to appear in physical actuality.
The answers to the challenges you face in life, in your career, in all kinds of life situations, or the answers to various problems -- they are all right at hand, within your body, within your mind. They are always readily available. Why? Because they are already a result of your subjective events -- that is to say, in the subjective world you already know what the outcome of these events will be after they occur. You are already prepared. Although these things have not happened to you yet, in your subjective world they are already prepared, so you know the answer, you know the method for solving the problem. And if you believe this, you can obtain it.
Then he goes on to say:
In the next chapter, I hope to show you the importance of value fulfillment in your own life.
Again, in the next chapter we will be discussing the importance of value fulfillment in each person's concrete life.
And to give you some clues that will allow you to take advantage of your own subjective and objective opportunities for such development.
I will give you some clues, and you can use these clues to develop your subjective and objective opportunities.
There is something very interesting here. What is meant by subjective? The subjective world we just talked about, right? For example, whether Jane makes this phone call or not -- for Jane, that is a subjective act, right? And what is an objective act? For example, that couple wanted to visit Jane. For Jane, their wanting to visit her -- from a certain angle, this is a subjective thought of hers: she wanted to see them, she wanted to invite them, she wanted to call and invite them, but before she called, they came. The event of their coming was, for Jane, a fusion of the subjective and the objective. Because they wanted to come, they wanted to visit Jane -- you could also say that Jane's thought of wanting to see them called them, right? But if you look at it in terms of time, you cannot really say that -- because Jane only thought of wanting to see them on Saturday morning, yet they had already written the letter on Friday, saying they would go out on Saturday and drop by to visit them. So if you get hung up on which came first and which came later, there is not much practical meaning in it.
Simply put, for us, we need to see both the objective side and the subjective side of any event. You do not need to keep wondering whether this is an event that was fixed to happen and Jane merely precognized or predicted its occurrence -- no. His key point is this: any event, whether you see it as subjective or objective, is inwardly a fusion, or a combination, of subjective intent and the objective.
For the person outside of you -- for example, that couple, Peter and Polly -- for Jane, their behavior is objective, because they wanted to visit Jane, and Jane had no decision-making power in this matter. Of course, she could decide not to see them, but that is another matter. But just in terms of their wanting to visit Jane, it seems as though this event was an objective matter for Jane, because they wanted to visit her. But subjectively, Jane also wanted to see them, and Jane even wanted to call and invite them over -- did these two not fit together perfectly?
And the events in our lives all happen this way, except that sometimes you can perceive it and sometimes you cannot. The so-called subjective and objective -- from a certain angle, you could also say it is the mutual subjectivity of both parties. For them, the couple subjectively wanted to visit; for Jane, Jane subjectively wanted to invite them. These are two subjectivities, right? If Jane had made that phone call or something, then Jane's act of calling would have been an objective event happening for the couple -- just as they were wanting to visit Jane, Jane's call came, saying, would you like to come over and sit for a while. You see, they could not manipulate Jane's behavior to make her make that call; from their perspective, they would consider Jane's calling an objective event. But for Jane, making the call was her subjective act, right? So subjective and objective are just a matter of which angle you are standing at. From the angle of each party, it is a dual-subjective act between both sides -- both are the result of subjective acts, but for each party, it is formed by one's own subjectivity plus the other's objectivity, ultimately coming together.
Does that help you understand? So these subjective and objective opportunities for such development -- you should make good use of them. In the next chapter he will tell you how to make good use of this, how to apply it well in actual life.
All right, let us stop here. This chapter ends, Chapter Nine ends, the dictation ends, this session ends, and Seth wishes everyone good night. This session is very short -- compared to the extraordinarily long content of Session 931, this session is an ultra-short one. So the length of each session in the Seth material varies.
注释与核实
-
Source: Yale University Library, "Guide to the Jane Roberts Papers" (https://ead-pdfs.library.yale.edu/4482.pdf) ↩
-
This claim could not be verified. ↩