Mike's commentary · The Magical Approach, Session 14

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

Introduction

This chapter begins with the history of psychology and the relationship between religion and science, pointing out that the concept of the soul once encompassed the full psychological complexity of human beings; the church opposed psychological and mystical experiences not because they were false, but because it feared they would threaten dogmatic order; the scientific age artificially shrank psychic reality, and modern psychology denies the soul while emphasizing heredity and death. Seth then discusses the suppression of "great men" in democratic societies and the backlash of religious fanaticism, and finally reminds Rob and Jane to fundamentally change their beliefs, while emphasizing the principles of relaxation and effortlessness.

Key Points of This Chapter

• Before modern psychology appeared, people used the word "soul" to cover the full complexity of consciousness, the unconscious, and all kinds of psychological experience.
• The church opposed psychic and mystical experiences, not because they were unreal, but because they would threaten the world order under the church's unified dogma.
• Science insisted on objectivity, which caused psychic reality to shrink artificially; modern psychology denied the soul, acknowledged only heredity and death, and reduced psychological activity.
• A democratic society allows a person to become president or a dignitary, yet regards "wanting to be a great person" as suspect, suppressing human tendencies and causing fanaticism to rebound explosively.
• Seth reminded Jane to remember the principle of effortlessness: relaxation is the warrior of creativity, and one should return to natural rhythms and fundamentally change old beliefs.

Main Text

Beginning: Background of This Session

The title of Session 14 of The Magical Approach is "The Self, Relaxation, and Effortlessness." This session began on Monday, September 29, 1980, at 9:18 p.m.

Before it began, Rob gave a brief introduction. He said that only a few sessions remained to be reviewed in the edited manuscript of The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, and once he finished, he would be able to compare it with the first typed draft, and then possibly send the edited manuscript back to the publisher for printing that weekend. The book was expected to be released in May 1981¹. Even during those periods of worry and doubt, Jane's condition was continuing to improve. Actually, they were still worried and doubtful, and even under those circumstances, she was still making progress.

Now, she was waiting impatiently for Seth to arrive. At first I thought she would give up on this session, but she finally felt that her boy was nearby. I was glad, and I joked that I had been a little afraid he might only get as far as two blocks away on Colman Street, and I did not want to just sit around waiting idly, wasting my time. Those were Jane's words. Jane felt that this was a waste of time, so you can see Jane's state of mind.

Before Psychology Emerged: People Used the Soul to Encompass Everything

At this point Seth came in. He said, if one claims that before the era of modern psychology, people's ideas about themselves only dealt with the conscious outer aspect, such a statement is not true. Before modern psychology, people had not even recognized the existence of the subconscious -- this statement is incorrect.

Although some have written that until that time, people thought of themselves as a flat kind of self, lacking, for example, the complexity of the subconscious and the unconscious. That people at that time thought they only had the conscious part of themselves, and had no deep understanding of the subconscious and the unconscious, or of the complexity that constitutes the self. Seth said that is not correct. Although someone may have told you this, it is not true.

He said, why does he say this? On the contrary, before psychology mapped out the parts of the self that were acceptable or forbidden, dangerous or safe, people used the word "soul" to include the entire complexity of themselves.

Seth said, modern psychology believes that before psychology developed, human beings could not recognize their more complex unconscious and subconscious parts. This is wrong. Before that time, although people did not use terms like "subconscious" or "unconscious" to name them, they always used the word "soul" to encompass all of this complexity, to encompass all of human complexity. This word was large enough to contain all human experience -- including the conscious, the unconscious, and the subconscious. It was large enough to provide space for traditional and non-traditional ideas, for strange or ordinary states of mind and experiences, all included. No matter how bizarre something was, it could be well explained and accommodated at the level of the soul. From the scientific angle as well, it could also be understood to a certain degree at the level of the soul. Its space was large enough to hold the images of physically perceived or psychologically perceived realities. Simply put, its space was large enough that it could perceive the material world -- both physical perception and psychological perception, it could perceive both.

Why the Church Opposes Psychological and Mystical Experience

Seth went on to say that the church finally directed all the curses of its religious law against certain psychological and mystical experiences. This church used everything it could use to curse others, everything it could use to intimidate and frighten others, including the most vicious curses, all directed against certain psychological and mystical experiences. The church particularly detested modern psychology and certain mystical experiences—that is, all experiences outside the church, it opposed them all.

Of course, it was not because the church did not think they were real. It was not that it felt those things were unreal, but rather because they would have a divisive effect on a world order built upon a unified dogma. It recognized this all too clearly. The church was very well aware that this kind of psychological research, or this kind of research into mystical phenomena, would cause the entire unified dogmatic world order—the church's rules and regulations—to fall apart. If it allowed this current of thought and these ideas to spread unchecked, it would overturn the church's entire value system and social order. So it opposed them with all its might.

Be sure to remember this: the church is doing exactly this right now. So it is perfectly normal for the church to oppose Seth and to oppose all other spiritual things, including psychological things—it opposes those as well, in the same way. In fact, it opposes everything outside the church. Seth said the reason it opposes them is not that it thinks those things are not real; it thinks they are all too real. Precisely because they are real, and might overturn its own world order built upon extremely rigid dogma, it will not allow them to happen.

He said, for example: people did not consider witches to be insane or mentally deranged. Because within the church, witches were considered insane, and there were specifically witch-hunters and witch-hunts—during a certain period, all sorcerers, male and female witches, were put to death²; whenever they were discovered, they were burned; whenever they were discovered, they were burned. Many movies about witches were also made.

But ordinary people did not consider witches to be insane or mentally deranged, because their psychological beliefs were too consistent with the beliefs of ordinary folk. Why did witches have such a social foundation and endure for so long? Not only in the West, but in the East as well—including in many rural areas, this kind of folk belief has always existed. In the Northeast it is especially prominent, with the chumaxian—there are so very many of them, the fox spirits, the weasel spirits, the snake spirits, the hedgehog spirits, the rat spirits, all sorts of things, a great many of them. Then in the South there are also some, where they more often worship Mazu, and the Miao people have their own beliefs as well—every region has them.

He said these people whom we all regard as sorcerers or witches, these mystical, otherworldly types—actually their psychological beliefs are consistent with those of ordinary people, all too consistent. They know what ordinary people are thinking, and they know what ordinary people want—all too consistent. So people did not consider witches to be mentally deranged or crazy, because witches were very clear-headed, very lucid; it was just that witches possessed certain special abilities. However, they did consider them evil, because the church considered them evil.

But in any case, some framework within the vast range of psychological experience can contain it. That is to say, when people are young, they can accept these things about spirits and ghosts; psychologically they have a unique range of psychological experience and framework. So from childhood we accept these things about ghosts and gods and such, without knowing where they came from; we do not seem to reject or feel unfamiliar with them in our psychological experience. And in daily life there are so many of them—things like "if you have done nothing wrong, you need not fear a ghost knocking at your door," and so on.

The saint and the sinner, each can enter into possible heroism or the remarkable depths of despair. What does this mean? Whether saint or sinner, each can enter into deeper levels of consciousness. And on that level there may be a kind of heroism, or there may be a remarkable depth of despair. If he goes astray, he may descend into a very despairing depth; if he goes the right way, he becomes a very heroic person, someone who can save the humanity of his era.

What he means here is that Seth is speaking from a religious point of view—religion would say that only saints can enter into higher realms, only saints can enter into heroism. Seth says no, saints and sinners are the same; if they pursue spiritual development, the achievements they attain can be exactly the same, with no essential difference. This is certainly the last thing the church wants to hear—how could they be the same? A saint is a saint, and a sinner is a sinner.

Although some people placed all the dangers of religion upon it—placed psychological reality upon it, referring to these mystical things, these things outside the church's approval—it is by no means a flat, one-dimensional experience; it is certainly very complex and multi-dimensional, including the conscious, the unconscious, and the subconscious.

In fact, precisely because the church so deeply believed in the possible remarkable range of psychological activity, it so dogmatically and tirelessly sought to maintain this order. Because the church itself also made use of psychological activity—that is how it achieved its present results. It knows better than anyone the importance and influence of psychological activity, because it used exactly this to achieve success. So it will not allow others to make use of the same thing, and it tirelessly, very dogmatically and rigidly, maintains order. On this matter, no rebuttal is tolerated.

The church regards everything outside the Bible as a cult. Everything else in the world, as long as it is outside the Bible, it considers a cult. This is dogma—there is no judgment or analysis whatsoever. You might say, let us debate it—no debate; no one will debate with you. No one will discuss this issue with you either; there is no space or necessity for discussion. No challenges allowed, no discussion allowed, no debate allowed. If you have ever dealt with church people, you will know—it is simply unbelievable.

The Artificial Shrinkage Brought by the Scientific Age

He says, unfortunately, with the development of a scientific era and the arrival of the scientific age, a development occurred that was not necessary. What is meant by a development that was not necessary? He explains below.

Seth says, I have already mentioned before that science insists on maintaining objectivity. The greatest drawback of so-called science is that it firmly demands the maintenance of objectivity; this is the founding principle of science -- it absolutely insists on this. Therefore it almost immediately brought about an artificial shrinkage of psychological reality. What is meant by artificial shrinkage? It is that it only acknowledges what can be proven in the laboratory; whatever cannot be proven is simply assumed not to exist. This is the scientific viewpoint -- as long as something cannot be proven in the laboratory, then it does not exist. First assume it does not exist, unless you prove it to me; if you have not proven it through scientific experiment, then I consider it nonexistent.

But how dogmatic this scientific viewpoint is! It is not human progress, but a shrinkage. Seth says it is an artificial shrinkage, man-made, not the result of natural development.

So anyone who experiences something that cannot possibly exist is more or less deluded or mentally deranged. That is, he feels that as long as you believe in these things that cannot be proven by experiment, then either you have been deluded, deceived, have fallen for a cult, or you have been brainwashed; or else you are mentally deranged. This is the viewpoint of all modern science toward everything beyond what experiments can prove.

And Seth considers the development of this scientific age to be in fact a misfortune, a tragedy, which has led to an artificial shrinkage of psychological reality.

Without a doubt, the psychological dimensions accepted by the world began to shrink just at the time when modern psychology was beginning. It is a great pity that, just when people were beginning to accept that the psychological world originally had many levels -- that there is the conscious mind, and below it the subconscious, and below that the unconscious, and that consciousness has many levels -- just when people were beginning to accept this viewpoint, it began to shrink. Why? Because these things are very difficult to prove in the laboratory. Every person is different from every other; how can such a thing be proven? How could one person produce two completely different psychological experiences? That is impossible.

Modern psychology is an attempt to make people conform to the new scientific view. Modern psychology wants to make itself conform to the new scientific view -- it feels that if it does not follow the mainstream of science, it will be very difficult for it to be accepted by mainstream society. Therefore, from the very beginning, modern psychology has tried to dress itself up as a scientific kind of thing to present to everyone. This is an attempt very much in line with toning down the picture -- it is toning down its conflict with science, packaging itself as much as possible as if using the framework and system of science, turning itself into a branch within modern science.

And it has manufactured a kind of creature whose very existence somehow fights against itself. Seth can be quite sharp-tongued as well -- and it has created a kind of creature that wrestles with itself. If you understand modern psychology or psychoanalysis, you will know that modern psychology holds that the subconscious and the conscious mind are inherently in conflict with each other. It has many, many viewpoints that are self-contradictory -- human beings seem to be born at odds with themselves: their subconscious is always dangerous, impulsive, irrational, and then their reason can never fully suppress the subconscious; in between, it seems as if there has been a constant struggle from childhood all the way to adulthood. It portrays human beings as such a twisted creature. Modern psychology portrays human beings in this way.

Therefore, based on Darwinism, using Darwin's theory of evolution, the evolved human being is a creature that cannot possess a soul. According to Darwin's theory, the soul does not exist. Human beings evolved from single-celled organisms all the way to today, becoming higher beings with intelligence -- he acknowledges intelligence, but he does not acknowledge that human beings have a soul.

At the psychological roots of this, at the psychological roots of this theory of evolution, there must inevitably be hidden the bloody remnants of the struggle for survival, which have trapped it in the uncomfortable role it currently occupies. The core viewpoint of Darwin is survival of the fittest, the survival of those best adapted to the environment -- only those that adapt to the environment can survive; those that do not adapt are eliminated. Therefore human beings must have fought their way out through such a rule of survival of the fittest, in other words, the law of the jungle, the rule of the strong preying on the weak, and only now have they stood at the top of the food chain of the entire planet.

Therefore, although we have stood at the top, the bloody remnants of our struggle for survival are still there. According to Darwin's theory, it is only natural and right that human beings may use any means necessary for survival, because that is how human beings developed. But this is inconsistent with the ego's self-perception -- the desire to live a peaceful and beautiful life itself. So human beings are very uncomfortable.

Why is it that on the one hand science tells you that human beings evolved in this way, that they fought their way through all other creatures to stand at the top of the food chain as such a bloody victor of the survival of the fittest -- a human being who emerged from a competitive environment where the winner becomes king and the loser becomes an outlaw, and, to put it bluntly, whose hands are stained with the blood of other species -- this is Darwin's viewpoint. Then how can you still very gracefully, and with what qualification, manage the entire earth? If you believe that the law of the jungle is the only rule of this world, then do you still have the face, as a highly intelligent creature, to manage the entire planet?

Therefore human beings are very uncomfortable. You can tell that Seth speaks very directly -- because he has already transcended the level of the human physical body, so when he speaks he does not hold back at all. Although the wording he uses is not all that direct, the matter he speaks of leaves no room for saving face.

He says, without a doubt, the Church assigned the soul to an oppressed position. How does the Church view the soul? It places it in an oppressed position, trapped between its heavenly origin and original sin. According to the Bible, human beings were created by God in His own image, so human beings themselves possess an attribute of God. Moreover, the Church says that human beings are beloved by God -- among all things, God loves human beings alone, which is why He sent His son to save them. Therefore human beings are placed in such a very twisted state -- they are both children of God, coming from heaven, and yet they still have original sin; you are born with sin. See how twisted this human being is!

He says this also involves a kind of psychological mobility. But fortunately, it preserved a kind of psychological mobility -- it preserved the possibility of continued existence after death, that is, it acknowledges that the soul can continue to exist. It did not completely kill him off; it did not say that when a person dies, he is utterly annihilated. Like that kind of materialist theory, which is even more direct -- it does not even acknowledge the existence of the soul; it does not even acknowledge that there is such a thing.

The Church acknowledges that the soul exists, but it is rather twisted -- it comes from heaven, yet it is born with original sin.

The Framework of Modern Psychology

He said that this new psychology, that is, modern psychology, has shut down activity after death. Modern psychology does not acknowledge the existence of the soul, make no mistake about that. You might feel that I often introduce Jung, or introduce these modern psychologists like Adler and so on -- but they only limit themselves to studying the events of a person's life. All of these psychologists, if they dare to declare themselves psychologists, must acknowledge one fact: the soul does not exist. If they dare to declare that the soul exists, then they are immediately kicked out of the scientific circle of psychology, and relegated to some kind of mental confusion, a charlatan, a cult, or some fringe discipline.

So if modern psychology wants to get along in this so-called modern science, it must do one thing: not acknowledge the existence of the soul. No matter what it thinks in its heart, its theoretical system cannot acknowledge the existence of the soul.

And at the same time, it gives each individual a repulsive primitive heritage from the past. It does not acknowledge the existence of the soul, so it tells you that you have a heritage passed down through genes -- a hereditary attribute. And in the end it can only lead to the grave, and ultimately to death.

It denies the existence of the soul, yet tells you that every person is born with a set of genes. These genes are influenced by the heredity of the parents, and the parents are in turn influenced by the heredity of their parents' parents -- it acknowledges this, but it does not acknowledge the soul. So it emphasizes genetic determinism. This is a repulsive primitive heritage -- it tells you that this thing you were born with was not decided by you. Many of your factors were not decided by you. This is a fatalistic viewpoint -- although it flies the banner of science, genes and all that, isn't it actually telling you that whatever illnesses you are born with were already decided long ago?

So Seth tells you that this is a repulsive, primitive, purely biological viewpoint. And no matter what, you bring this heredity with you, but in the end you still have to die. So between birth and death, psychological activity is diminished. Moreover, any possibility of after-death experience is still regarded as the most unreasonable and irrational kind of speculation. You imagine whether there is experience after death, whether consciousness still exists after a person dies, and so on -- he says all of these are unreasonable and irrational. Speculation means wild guessing, guessing without any basis. This is the basic framework of modern psychology.

Contradictions in a Democratic Society

Then let us continue. In your democratic politics -- Seth discusses a very wide range of issues. After discussing psychology, modern psychology, and then religious churches, now he discusses our democratic political society. He says, from a social perspective, in your democratic society, anyone can rise from being the son of a poor farmer to becoming president. In American society this can be realized; although it is very difficult, it is not impossible.

For example, Obama was a child from an ordinary family. It was only four years before he became a state senator that he had just finished paying off his college tuition loans³. He was actually a lawyer, but he entered politics too early. In America, if an ordinary citizen has the ability, they do have the chance to become president. Someone like Trump, a political novice who had never even served as a section chief for a single day, who had never held any government public office for even one day⁴, could directly become president and become the nation's highest leader. This exists under America's particular democratic system.

A vagrant may also become a prominent figure in society -- this is possible, if you have the ability. An illiterate person may also become a highly educated person -- because in America, education is protected; from elementary school through high school it is free; if you go to college and have no money, you can apply for student loans; if your family is truly poor, the government will give you loans so you can finish college, though of course you must later repay the loans with your income.

Yet the idea of becoming a great person is considered highly suspect. You can become president, you can become a prominent figure, you can become a highly educated and learned person. But when you want to say "I want to become a great person," then trouble begins -- you become highly suspect. Others will say, do you have some hidden agenda, is this wild ambition, are you trying to become the leader of a cult?

So you bind yourself up. You yourself feel it is not acceptable; no one dares to step forward and say they want to become a great person.

Great enthusiasm, desire, intent, or genius does not fit that picture. Your enthusiasm for wanting to become a great person, your intent, longing, and desire to become a great person, or the very genius and ability you possess for becoming a great person -- none of it fits the picture of what society as a whole expects of a person. Society as a whole has only one standard for what it expects of people -- you can become president, and that can win everyone's admiration. So-and-so rose from an ordinary person to become president; that can be written about at great length, that is acceptable. A person who builds a fortune from nothing and becomes a billionaire -- that can also win admiration. But if a person wants to become a great person, no matter how much enthusiasm, how much intent, how much genius and ability they have, as long as they want to become a great person, this matter does not conform to the public's expectations. The public also does not expect it of themselves -- they have tied themselves up; they do not want to become that kind of person, and they do not hope others become that kind of person either.

Seth points this out very directly. Some people are unwilling to fit that mold -- some people do not want to become great persons -- they will take what they can get through your technology. Through our technology they obtain it. But, in a conscious and spontaneous manner, they retaliate by exaggerating all those human tendencies that your society has suppressed so well, and they still do so.

For example, if you can have reason without faith, then indeed you will see that it is also possible to have faith without reason. When human experience becomes shrunk and compressed in such a way, then you may say that in one manner, it also explodes at both ends.

What is he trying to say in this passage? Humanity has actually already restricted itself to death -- not wanting to become great persons, boxing itself in. And human society as a whole also does not allow certain people to jump out and say "I am a great person." Whoever dares to say this will first be destroyed -- the bird that sticks out its head gets shot. Someone like the Buddha, who at birth pointed one hand to the sky and one hand to the earth and said "In heaven above and on earth below, I alone am honored" -- such a person would have been wiped out very early on; they would not have been allowed to exist. So our society does not welcome the existence of great persons, does not hope for great persons to exist, and does not even hope that it itself is a great person. You see, some people are unwilling to become great persons themselves, and they do not hope others will either.

Then they will, through your technology, perhaps want to obtain what they want through technological means. For example, we could mention Iron Man -- someone like Elon Musk can win admiration. If one day Elon Musk said he wanted to run for president, that might be somewhat acceptable, but if he said he wanted to lead the whole world, he would certainly be criticized to death.

He says in a conscious and spontaneous manner, they retaliate by exaggerating all those human tendencies that your society has suppressed so well. You humans originally have the potential of great persons; each of you is a godlike existence. But you do not dare admit that you are gods, and you do not even allow others to say they are gods. Whoever dares to say this will be sent to a mental hospital. This is a form of highly repressed retaliation -- humanity originally had a very good tendency, but we have suppressed this tendency, and then we even retaliate against others. And it will still be this way -- we ourselves do not want to become godlike existences, and we do not hope others become godlike existences either; whoever dares to jump out will immediately be attacked.

He then begins to give examples. If you can have reason without faith -- that is, you can become very intelligent and very wise, but you do not have faith that you yourself can become such a great person -- then you will see that it is possible to have faith in wanting to become a great person, yet without reason.

It is very strange: some people have enough wisdom, but they themselves lack faith. There are many such people in our society -- scientists, outstanding people; they have wisdom and ability, but they lack faith, lacking that kind of fervor and persistence. And some people, certain religious zealots, certain charlatans, have faith -- very strong faith -- but lack ability; their wisdom and level are insufficient, not enough to become such a person. So in these two situations, human experience shrinks in this way. What we see is that great persons are always very few -- why? Those with ability lack faith, and those with faith lack ability. So it is in a state that could be called compressed, and both ends burst apart -- which two ends? One extreme of rationality, one extreme of faith. At both ends it bursts apart, explodes.

Along with the deeds of great heroes, there are many heroic deeds, yet you have also committed violent and cruel acts, but each is explosive, representing the sudden release of suppressed energy. That which was originally forbidden, and thus the group psyche of humanity sometimes expresses itself like exploding fireworks, only because the pressure must be released.

Many great persons possess ability and capability, but we have strangled them. When we strangle great persons, it is often extremely cruel and extremely brutal. You say, how is that possible? Then just look at the fates of reformers throughout ancient Chinese history. Including recent ones, including the Hundred Days' Reform or the Eight Gentlemen, their fates. Lu Xun also once wrote "Human Blood Steamed Bread"⁵; after Qiu Jin was killed, people went to dip the steamed bread in her human blood⁶. Although she was a revolutionary, leading the people of an entire era to awaken, and what they did was like that of great persons, the result was accompanied by violent and cruel acts -- people went mad trying to kill them. Why? Because the human psyche sometimes expresses itself like exploding fireworks, and the pressure must be released.

Even your poor, misguided moral and religious organizations also say, in their own way, to the science-oriented society -- that is, our morality or religion, and this morality and religion are misguided -- in this way they say to the scientific world: Then how can faith not be real? We will use it to change your laws; we will turn it into power, political power. Let us see what you say then. We have been ridiculed for too long; now let us see who is laughing.

What he means is that these moral and religious organizations have always been excluded from mainstream society. In this science-oriented society where science is the mainstream, they have always lingered at the margins. Science emphasizes reason and does not value faith, feeling that faith is of little use, that everything depends on actual strength -- technological strength, economic strength. But these moral and religious organizations emphasize faith -- including all the spiritual things we study -- they say that faith is very important, that your faith and your beliefs can determine your world.

So these organizations will jump out and say: Since you think faith is unimportant, then let us show you just how much explosive power faith has. We will use it -- that is, faith -- to change your laws, to change your society, to turn it into a political force. We have been ridiculed for too long; now let us see who can laugh last.

So these moral and religious groups want to fight back, and that is why we often see these fanatical elements in society, these fanatical factions of religious organizations fighting back.

The Example of Iran

What is he alluding to here? It is Iran. Because at this time, in 1980, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 had just taken place⁷. From that original king -- a very open, enlightened king -- Iran at that time had already fully integrated into modern society. It is not that Iran had never modernized; it had once been very modern. But after 1970, it was once again controlled by those fanatical religious elements and became a thoroughly religious state. Even today, Iran is a country whose core is promoting Islam to the whole world -- it is not enough for it to say that its own country is Islamic; it wants to spread Islam throughout the world, and that is its main goal. So why is it that today the Western countries, led by the United States, suppress and strangle Iran to the utmost? It is because Iran not only wants to promote religion within itself, but also wants to promote its religious fanaticism throughout the world.

The example he cites here has a certain historical background. So if you understand this, you can understand what this religious organization and morality means.

So fanaticism ran rampant. In other stages of human society there has also been this kind of religiously driven fanaticism. Because human tendencies that had been denied by mainstream society -- humanity's tendencies toward morality and religion were both denied -- erupted with explosive force. According to the development of modern society, these churches -- not the Christian church, but these Islamic things -- should have already become an appendage; they could not possibly become the core of a nation, nor could an entire country and society live according to the normative guidance of the Quran. So it was always excluded. But when it is excluded to a certain degree, it erupts.

Iran is a typical example. Its eruption had a mass base; you must not think it was only a minority. No. When the revolution erupted and drove out the king, it had the mass base of the entire Iranian people -- the masses demanded it, were willing, and it was what the people's hearts desired.

And that tendency itself must be accepted as a characteristic of human experience. You cannot close your eyes and say it is not part of humanity, that it should be excised like a tumor -- that it is not a normal phenomenon of human society. Whatever happens exists, and whatever exists is reasonable. We must acknowledge it and accept it -- it is part of the experience of human society, and you must accept it.

In an explosive, concrete yet miniature way -- Iran is one example in the world, and it remains so even today. It carries with it a historical background and a modern political background. Iran, from its earliest primitive civilization and the Persian Empire all the way to today, has a very long historical background, including its religious background; and then it has a modern political background, its geopolitical position, and so on. Even today Iran remains a country unlike any other in the world.

So modern psychology simply has no way to explain this thing; it has no concepts or explanations for this kind of reality.

Seth and Rob

Now in this world, he said to Rob — you had already formed your own beliefs and strategies long ago, and in your middle age you were given our sessions. If you like, you could also say that the two of you gave these sessions to yourselves. If you want to put it that way, if it sounds more comfortable to you. They were not given to you; the two of you asked for them.

You recognize the overall vitality of this information of ours — the overall vitality of the entire Seth material. But once again, you have not realized what it means — it means a complete reorientation of your mentality. You know its vitality, but you have not realized that for your entire mentality it is a complete reorientation — that is, subversive, completely subversive.

You have not realized that you were not only given a different view of reality, an alternative view, but were shown the closest approximation you can get of what reality is, how it works, and what it means. This is Seth's own general statement about his entire theoretical system: the emphasis of the whole Seth system is on what reality is — reality is what this real world of ours is actually like, how it works, and at the same time what it means to us.

And then it is a kind of closest approximation. You must remember that Seth's account is the closest approximation. Seth repeatedly emphasizes: do not think that what I say is the truth; what I say is not the truth, I am only offering an approximation.

He said, in my treatment of your traditional habits and institutions, I have been very gentle. With regard to your traditional social habits, living habits, and institutions, he was very gentle. Because I do not want you to rebel against your world — I do not want you to stand up and say this world is bad here and bad there, everything is wrong, we are living in inverted dreams, let us invert it back again. He said I am not asking you to rebel against your world, but rather to want a more satisfactory world — to rebel against this world, to obtain a more satisfactory world, to overthrow the existing world. He said no.

When our present book Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment comes through, what will we discuss? How our concepts can be applied by the individual — in terms of value fulfillment. Because the individual can begin to reclaim those dimensions of experience that are rightfully your legitimate heritage — the heritage you should have had all along, the sum total of all the civilizations of all our human lifetimes. Those dimensions of experience are not only those of the three-dimensional world, but also include all the dimensions of experience of all the multidimensional worlds. And these are what you humans should have had all along, what every individual should have.

What he means by this passage is, I am not asking you to jump up and oppose our world; I am asking you, for example through the book Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment, through each of your own value fulfillment, to change this world concretely and minutely, rather than bringing about some earth-shaking change. In this kind of concrete and minute change, after each individual's personal value fulfillment is accomplished, then the whole nation or the whole society or the whole world will undergo some fundamental changes. And this kind of change must follow the process by which each individual rediscovers himself — realizing that he himself is a multidimensional being.

The Principle of Effortlessness

Then he pulled the question back from the human perspective to Jane's personal issues. Now, as far as Ruburt is concerned, I want him to remember the principle of effortlessness.

Because although he has the best of intentions, he has been trying too hard. This point should be noted. Jane has been trying too hard, her life is too tense -- you can feel it stretched there like a rubber band. She seems to have to sit down at this desk to write every morning at a little past eight, she has to create every day, as if the day would be wasted if she did not create. Looking at all the things she has done over the years, all the books she has written, you can tell how heavy her workload has been. There were no computers in that era; it was the age of typewriters.

So he told her: do not try too hard, you are overexerting yourself. Although the intention is good, the effort is too intense. I want her to remember that relaxation is one of creativity's greatest champions, not its enemy. Everyone should underline this sentence -- relaxation is the greatest champion of your creativity, relaxation is not the enemy of your creativity.

Many people do not want to relax, do not dare to relax, feeling that the moment they relax they are idling away their time, wasting and squandering it. They always want to pack their schedules completely full, always want to keep their production-line timetable tight and tense, with every day planned out -- what to do at what hour and minute -- even making a very strict schedule to follow. Jane is a classic negative example. Because she was stretched as tight as a rubber band, her entire body eventually took on a rubber-band-like tightness, a state of being unable to loosen up, and in the end her whole body became hunched and curled together.

He was naturally endowed with an agile body and mind -- you see, he told Jane that Jane was naturally endowed with agility in both body and mind, that her body and mind were naturally agile. He said she must be reminded to express her natural rhythms -- natural rhythms. Remember that the natural person is the safest. The natural person is also the magical person, and he is the safest.

Your most important inspirations come to you effortlessly. Your most important inspirations are all effortless -- be sure to remember, these inspirations are yours effortlessly, they do not require you to work desperately from morning to night every day.

I want you to see how many of your beliefs are the result of the old framework. Many of your current beliefs come from the old framework -- the old framework that says you must work hard every day to get good results. Because in that case, I am letting you see your old beliefs at work. You will find yourselves releasing yourselves more and more, and thus your own power will come to your aid, will come to help you. The more you relax yourself, the more you release yourself, the more you live unfettered, like a natural person returning yourself to the natural environment, the more your own power will come to help you.

So in the last paragraph of this session, he wanted Jane, and Rob as well, to relax, to release themselves back to the state of the natural person, to operate according to the natural rhythms. On this point, this session and the previous several sessions have all been discussing similar issues, so I will not elaborate further here. I think by this stage of learning, everyone already knows this in their hearts and understands it intuitively -- how to be a natural person, a magical person, in your own life. And do not be like Jane. Jane is not a good role model for you; in this material Jane serves as a negative example, a cautionary example shown to you.

After the Session, Jane's Situation

After the session, Jane had little awareness of most of the information in the session — that is, she did not know what Seth was going to transmit. But she remembered that just before the session began, she had already received Seth's point about the effortless approach being related to her own situation.

So you can imagine how strong Seth's belief was in wanting to tell Jane to change herself effortlessly. To put it simply, Seth wanted Rob and Jane to fundamentally change their belief system — in other words, to fundamentally change their values, their worldview, and their outlook on life. But they did not. They were still operating on their old beliefs. They had only applied some of Seth's theories on a partial level, without fundamentally changing their values.

So Seth emphasized repeatedly here — and this was not the first time — that what the two of you need to do is not piece things together, patch things up, and use whatever works wherever it works. What the two of you need to do is fundamentally abandon your old belief system and replace it with this brand-new belief system of the natural person's magical approach that I have been telling you about. Use this way to face your lives and handle the ordinary matters of your daily lives, and you will do better — both physically and mentally.

So you could say Seth was earnestly and tirelessly saying this all along. You can see these last few sessions have been saying it, and in fact this entire book, The Magical Approach, is really focused on telling Jane and Rob. In other words, to put it bluntly, Seth could already foresee at this point what the outcome would be for Jane if she did not change — Seth actually already knew. So he used every possible means at his disposal at this time. He devoted this entire book, telling it to everyone, but more than anything he wanted to tell Jane and Rob.

Although this session is not long, the information in it is worth our deep thought and reflection — including the many issues it raises about social phenomena.

注释与核实

1. This claim could not be verified. ↩

2. According to Mike's original words, it was "at one period all wizards, sorcerers, and witches were put to death"; upon verification, it should be "the early modern European witch hunts did not put all accused witches to death—historians estimate that about 100,000 people were prosecuted, of whom about 40,000 to 60,000 were executed, more than three-quarters of them women, with the peak period from 1580 to 1630." (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Early modern witch trial," https://www.britannica.com/topic/early-modern-witch-trial) ↩

3. This claim could not be verified. ↩

4. Source: University of Virginia Miller Center, "Donald Trump: Life in Brief" (https://millercenter.org/president/trump/life-in-brief) ↩

5. According to Mike's original words, it was "Lu Xun also once wrote 'Human Blood Bread'"; upon verification, it should be "Lu Xun did not write a work titled 'Human Blood Bread'; 'human blood bread' is the central plot of his 1919 short story 'Medicine,' collected in the story collection 'Call to Arms.'" (Source: Wikipedia, "Medicine (short story)," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_(short_story)) ↩

6. According to Mike's original words, it was "after Qiu Jin was killed, in order to dip into that human blood bread"; upon verification, it should be "'Human blood bread' is a fictional plot in Lu Xun's 1919 story 'Medicine'—the executed revolutionary Xia Yu ('Xia' corresponds to 'Qiu,' 'Yu' corresponds to 'Jin') alludes to Qiu Jin, whose blood was dipped onto a steamed bun by ignorant people to cure consumption; historical records state that after Qiu Jin was executed at Xuantingkou in Shaoxing in 1907, her body was hastily collected by the Tongshan Bureau, and there was no incident of dipping blood onto a steamed bun." (Source: Wikipedia, "Medicine (Lu Xun)," https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%97%A5_(%E9%AD%AF%E8%BF%85)) ↩

7. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Iranian Revolution (1979)" (https://www.britannica.com/event/Iranian-Revolution) ↩