Mike's commentary · The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Chapter 7

The "Introduction" and "Chapter Highlights" in this chapter were summarized by an AI editor based on the main text below; they are not words spoken by Mike during his lectures. The main text comes from Mike's commentary, and the block quotes are Seth's original words (the portions Mike read aloud).

Guided Reading

This chapter begins with the conflict between American democratic ideals and religious and scientific beliefs, discussing how idealists become fanatics because of powerlessness, pessimism, and the idea that "the end justifies the means." Through examples such as Jonestown, Hitler's Germany, the atomic bomb, and animal experimentation, it shows that sacrificing life in the name of "good" can bring disaster, and proposes "Thou shalt not kill" as a commandment. It also analyzes the suppression of creativity by science and religion from the perspective of gender and views of power, and finally, in answering a physicist, points out that the universe is a psychological manifestation, and that concepts form reality.

Key Points of This Chapter

• If idealism believes the world cannot be changed, it will degenerate into pessimism; if it believes that the end justifies any means, it becomes fanaticism.
• Fanatics fundamentally feel powerless, do not believe in individual action, and use collective fanaticism, fear, and hatred to escape personal responsibility.
• Sacrificing life in the name of "good" -- whether through war, the atomic bomb, animal experimentation, or religious persecution -- is all fanaticism; the end cannot justify the means.
• The masculine view of power in science and religion suppresses creativity, causing the universe to be treated as meaningless objective phenomena while ignoring its psychological nature.
• The universe is a psychological manifestation; concepts form private and mass realities; science should investigate the source of thoughts and consciousness rather than shrinking reality only into objective terms.

Main Text

Good and Evil and Great Disasters

Today we are introducing Chapter 7 of the Seth book The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, titled "Good and Evil and Great Disasters: Jonestown, Harrisburg, and When Do Idealists Become Fanatics?"

The first part of this chapter is Session 848, Wednesday evening, April 11, 1979, beginning at 9:21 p.m. Session 847 was skipped in between, as that session is unrelated to this book.

Before we begin, let us first look at what Rob said. He said that during dinner today, Jane and he were watching reports about a series of tornadoes that struck northern Texas and southern Oklahoma yesterday at dusk — the so-called "Tornado Alley" area, stretching from northern Texas all the way north to southern Oklahoma, where tornadoes frequently occur. So far the death toll has exceeded 50 people¹, over a hundred have been injured, and thousands are homeless. They had once driven through these damaged communities before, so seeing the reports touched them deeply. Rob and Jane then said: Why would someone choose to live in a region where such storms occur every year? Why would they not move away?

Rob said that this question, of course, also applies to people in any dangerous environment on this planet. For example, many people ask: Is it not predicted that California may have a major earthquake? Why is California's population still so large, and are people not afraid of a major earthquake? So let us see how Seth interprets this question.

Session 848

Seth's first sentence was:

Governments of all shapes and sizes represent different levels of consciousness, exercises at different levels.

That is to say, the various governments are all somewhat different. Look at the earth: there are democratic systems, constitutional monarchies, dictatorships, all kinds.

The American experiment with democracy was bold, innovative, and heroic.

Why does he say American democracy is a democratic experiment? He goes on:

In terms of the history you understand, this was the first time that all the inhabitants of a country were considered by law to be citizens equal to one another.

This is the first time in human history that the idea of everyone being equal was actually written into law². You might say: that is not right, lots of countries have written that into their constitutions. True, but writing it is one thing; actually carrying it out is quite another. You know this in your heart. Is Britain like that, for example? Britain has aristocrats and a royal family. Do you think the queen is the same as you? Are your rights equal to the queen's? How could they be.

Many European countries still have kings even now, like Denmark and so on; the head of government can only be the prime minister. So other countries are similar in this regard.

And this is indeed a genuine ideal.

Of course, in actual circumstances, inequality often exists. Seth does not deny that just because equality is written into law, there is real equality in practice — no. In society, in the marketplace, actual treatment often diverges greatly from that proclaimed national ideal. Can a billionaire be equal to you? It is only equality under the law, equality in name.

That dream is an important part of the national life of the American people, and even those without shame must at least give it lip service, making plans that are outwardly compliant but inwardly defiant.

Seth does not mince words. By "those without shame," he means people who are able to work but do not work, and who take social welfare. The old, the weak, the sick, and the disabled are another matter — those are people who have truly lost the ability to work, and there is nothing more to say. But in America there are many able-bodied people who simply do not work. Seth calls these people "those without shame." And the law still requires that they be given welfare, so people give it with lip service and make plans that are outwardly compliant but inwardly defiant. This "lip service" has evolved into a very serious social problem today.

In the past, and in most parts of the world even now, many important decisions were made not by the individual, but by the state or by religion or by society.

This is fairly balanced. Although America has many imperfections in its system, and democracy has its flaws — we saw many problems in this year's election — no matter how you put it, it at least gives every citizen the right to vote and the right to stand for election under the law. As for whether there is fraud or cheating, that is left to history and the law to determine. But other countries do not even give you that right; they only give it to you on the surface, and in fact do not carry it out at all.

In this century, several issues came to the forefront of American culture.

That is to say, in the twentieth century, many issues became the points of conflict at the very forefront of American culture.

Organized religion became exteriorized.

Organized religion has already become a social organization rather than a spiritual one. If you understand American religion, if you understand these churches, you know that churches register like corporations and operate like corporations, with their own business plans, expansion goals, and so on. It is no longer a spiritual entity. Seth pointed out the current state of American religion with piercing accuracy.

And science and technology and money interests came together.

That is, religion has already become a combination of science, technology, and financial interests.

Here, Ruburt was discussing William James's book The Diary of an American Philosopher After Death³. This book is a very good piece of background material, and it is currently being read aloud on Helen's channel. This book seems to be rare in China, and translations are even rarer; Helen searched for a long time before finding a Chinese translation. It has very important reference value for understanding American history and contemporary history, including the processes of democracy and politics. If you want to understand America deeply, this book is worth reading, especially the parts dealing with democracy and the study of the soul. Actually, in our group, the earliest person to raise the importance of this book was someone called Chaoshengbo, who also did some of his own translation.

In any case, in one respect, each person was supposed to be equal to each other person.

From this angle, the idea that every person is supposed to be equal to every other person is correct. He gives examples: marriage was no longer arranged; a man no longer had to follow his father's trade — if his father was a leatherworker, he also had to be a leatherworker. Young people found themselves facing a great many individual decisions, free to do as they pleased, whereas in other cultures these things were still more or less automatically decided.

The development of transportation opened up the country, so that a person was no longer confined to his hometown.

All of this meant that the conscious mind of man was about to expand its powers, its abilities, and its range.

America at that time — in 1979 — and still now, was and is brimming with idealism. At that time America had gone through the civil rights movement, with Black people fighting for their rights, represented by Martin Luther King Jr., and through unremitting effort in the 1950s and 60s, finally achieved genuine equality.

The core of this passage is that America itself is still full of idealism, and this remains true even now.

That idealism, however, ran smack up against the two dark clouds of Freud's and Darwin's thought.

Seth's angle is always different from everyone else's. American idealism collided with the two "dark clouds" of Freud's and Darwin's thought — very pessimistic, very bad things.

How can a country be effectively governed by those who are, after all, nothing more than chemicals careening about in human form, carrying neuroses buried deep within them since childhood, flawed children of humanity abandoned by a meaningless universe in which no meaning can be found?

This passage has too long a definition, with attributive clauses winding around in the middle. What he means is: when this idealistic country of America ran into Darwin's theory of evolution and Freud's theory of the subconscious, what kind of situation would result? How could such people manage such an idealistic country? A bunch of chemical products careening about, neurotics carrying the aftereffects of childhood trauma, controlled by hormones and other chemical substances — this group of people, managing a country that claims to uphold idealism. He is being sarcastic.

Organized religion felt threatened.

Religion felt that they could not be allowed to go on like this. If religion could not prove that man has a soul, then it at least had to guarantee that, through proper social work, the needs of the body were taken care of.

And so it gave up many principles that might have increased its power.

Religion felt that, according to the views of Freud and Darwin — both of which are anti-religious, because religion upholds creationism, which is completely incompatible with Darwin's theory of evolution — no, religion had to stand up and oppose them. But religion could not produce proof of the existence of the soul either. Since it could not prove it, it settled for the next best thing: I cannot prove the soul exists, so I will guarantee that every person receives proper care, at least that their physical needs are met.

So you see, the largest charitable organizations in America are basically all churches. Churches take care of the people at the very bottom of society — abandoned infants, the homeless. America has "food banks," and many social service organizations provide free food, done very meticulously. It is not the rough stuff you might imagine, but packaged one portion at a time: milk, fruit, a full meal, put together very completely. People come and take it; no registration, no sign-up, just line up and take it and go. This is very widespread across America. There are also churches that provide free lodging and free places to shower. Although demand exceeds supply, the mechanism is there: you cannot reserve; every night it is by order of the line, and if there are only a hundred beds, then a hundred people get in, and the hundred and first is out of luck. The next day you leave and come back to line up again. It has its own set of social security mechanisms.

But Seth says:

It gave up many of its principles.

What principles? That is, it no longer insisted on the existence of the soul. Because society did not acknowledge this, and it could not prove it either; if it kept insisting, it would be beaten black and blue by science. So it simply stopped bringing the matter up, and only preached that the soul exists, but did not seek proof, did not seek to persuade, and only sought to ensure that every person in society received physical care.

Instead, it accepted many platitudes that equated cleanliness with virtue.

It also accepted a lot of old ideas, believing that cleanliness is a manifestation of virtue — this view is of course wrong. Whether a person's character is noble has nothing to do with cleanliness. But people do not think that way; people think that cleanliness represents nobility and status, and that a slovenly person must be a person of low character. So this view is a platitude.

Hence our... your deodorant commercials, and many other aspects of the marketplace.

He is being sarcastic again. I do not know how deodorant offended Seth, but he takes it out on it again and again. I suspect that in a past life, Seth must have been traumatized by deodorant, otherwise he would not use this thing as an example and joke about it over and over.

In the public mind, it made little difference whether it was the devil or a defective gene.

"The devil" is the religious view, and "a defective gene" is the scientist's view. He says that in the public mind, whether it is because of the devil or because of a defective gene, it makes no difference to a person — either way, a person is doomed to a life he seemingly cannot control. He cannot control it either way. So people begin to feel powerless, and begin to feel that social action itself has little value; there will still be poor people, and fate is still unpredictable.

For if man's evil was inherent for any reason, then where was there any hope?

Whether it is Christianity saying "man is born with original sin," or scientists saying "human genes cannot be perfect and always have flaws," if that is the case, what hope is there for man? If no solution can be found in either religion or science, then people go elsewhere to find hope — improving the quality of life, improving living conditions, that is something they can still work on. So human society can only work on this one thing, and gives up on everything else, because there is no way.

There was some hope to be found in whatever exterior distraction could be found, if one could forget one's private doubts.

This is quite cutting. What he means is: since the fundamental problem cannot be solved — man is born flawed, born controlled by the devil, and this overall pessimistic situation for humanity cannot be solved — then forgetting it is actually a very good method. How to forget? Find something you can solve yourself, like improving your quality of life: the house gets bigger and bigger, the car gets more and more expensive.

Idealism, however, is tough and enduring.

He emphasizes again that idealism is tough and enduring. No matter how many times it seems to have been wiped out, strangled, it always comes back in different forms. Every so often someone brings it up again, wanting to build an ideal society and an ideal kingdom. No matter how many times facts prove that idealism cannot be realized and has many, many problems, it still cannot stop the people who come after from trying again and again, one after another.

Those who felt that religion had failed them, therefore, began to turn to science again.

They found that religion could not let them achieve the kind of idealistic life they wanted, so they turned to science, because:

Science promised to provide the closest approximation of an earthly paradise.

He emphasizes the word "promised" again — it is very subtle. Science only seems to promise you, to pledge to you, but the word "promised" clearly carries a sense of fobbing off and evading responsibility. Religion disappointed people: apart from providing the most basic care for the body, it gave up the pursuit of the soul; and when it comes to caring for the body, religion really is not as good as science. So people moved from religion to science. Science offers all kinds of promises: follow us scientists, this is the correct direction for humanity; as long as you follow science, there will be an inexhaustible supply of goods and products, every household will have at least two cars — America is indeed like this, more than two, on average more than one car per person; every disease has a medicine that can cure it; every problem has an answer.

And at first, it seemed as though science had finally lived up to expectations — this was done beautifully. In the blink of an eye, the world went from candlelight to electric light, and then to neon lights; humanity had not changed much for thousands of years, but underwent enormous changes in just one or two hundred years. All of this must be credited to science.

And a man could cover in a few hours distances that had taken his father or grandfather days or even months to traverse.

It is even faster now. Ultra-high-speed flight vehicles are being tested, and it is said that from New York to Shanghai will take only 39 minutes⁴. That is flying at the speed of a launch vehicle; this technology may be realized very soon. In the age of sail, taking a ship from Shanghai to New York took more than a month, and that was in the later period when there were fast ships; before that, slow ships took two or three months.

And while science provided ever-increasing comforts and conveniences, few people asked questions.

When science seemed to solve all our problems, no one questioned it.

There was no doubt, however, that exterior conditions had improved, but the individual did not seem any happier.

Seth again poses the soul-searching question: material conditions have all improved, but people are not any happier than before; in fact, they are less happy. Ask people today compared with Americans in the 1950s, and people today really are not as happy as they were then. In 1979 this was already obvious, and by 2021 it is even more obvious — look, America is about to come to blows, with Democrats and Republicans both very agitated over the election.

The inventions of science could also have a darker side. If scientific knowledge is used to overturn the very foundations of life, then what use are the external conveniences of life?

What does he mean? That science could also destroy the earth. The weapons we have today for destroying the earth — atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, and the stealth bombers, intercontinental missiles, and submarine-launched missiles that carry them — are they not all the result of scientific development? Science has brought convenience, but it has also brought the possibility of destroying life itself. Humanity today is still in fear: we do not know when an unforeseeable nuclear war might break out and the entire earth be destroyed in an instant. When science provides both convenience and the possibility of overturning life, what use is that convenience? It is two sides of the same coin.

He gives too many examples; I will not go into them all:

The various medicines that are faithfully taken all have many side effects themselves; the agricultural chemicals and pesticides that protect agriculture are extremely harmful to people; including current genetic engineering, genetically modified foods also have an enormous impact on people.

This situation was far more disturbing than the threat of an atomic nuclear disaster.

He is referring to the Three Mile Island nuclear leak incident mentioned a couple of days ago⁵. Why? Because a nuclear leak is visible; the whole world focuses on it, and all the scientists are trying to find a solution. But the effects and harms of these things in daily life — no one pays attention to them or takes them seriously.

Some people looked for, and still look for, some authority to make their decisions for them.

People have always wanted to seek out experts, scholars, research institutions, universities, professors, PhDs, academicians, and have these people make decisions for them. Because the world seems more and more dangerous, they need authority even more, and because of their own beliefs, they feel more and more powerless.

These people who look outward for authority long to return to the old ways — the ways of their youth, of their childhood: the decision to marry was made for them. Would anyone really like that? I do not know. Maybe I will guess: could it be that the single men and women in big cities today, deep down, faintly envy the arranged marriages of ancient times? At least someone arranged it for you, and you did not have to worry; they matched your birth charts, checked whether the families were of equal status, and it was settled. What was the point of dating? Not necessary.

They could safely follow in their fathers' footsteps.

If the father made shoes, he made shoes too; if the father repaired watches, he repaired watches too; he just took over his father's work. No need to think about which city to go to for development; there was no other city to go to anyway; you just lived your small life in the city where you were born.

But now that is no longer possible; they are trapped between science and religion.

They cannot go back to that old era. Arranged marriages and matchmakers no longer exist; even if you wanted an arranged marriage, there is no one to arrange it for you. So their idealism cannot find any particular channel — they want to live according to their idealism, but religion does not work, science does not work, and relying on themselves does not work either. Their dream seems to have been betrayed.

Those people who found no liberation in either science or religion began to pin their hopes on all kinds of fanatical sects. As long as you join a fanatical sect, you no longer need to make decisions — and you cannot make decisions anymore either; everything has been decided for you: what slogans to shout, what clothes to wear, what to follow, what gestures to make, what to do — everything is arranged for you. The burden of individualism is lifted. Was he not just wishing for an arranged marriage? Wanting to solve the problem of life choices? Now there is no need to choose, and no choice either; instead, he feels relieved.

Many people do not understand: how can anyone go backwards? Once people have tasted freedom, how can they retreat? We cannot make rash judgments about this. Look, are not certain countries going backwards right now? Is there not this kind of trend? Many people join fanatical organizations; when they cannot find a way out in either religion or science, what they actually want is to unload the burden of individual choice. They want to pursue idealism but cannot find an outlet, so they place this expectation in fanatical sects, hoping to realize their ideal utopia through such an organization.

That individualism was robbed of its sense of power by contradictory beliefs.

He previously did not believe in fanaticism; he was an individualist, believing in neither religion nor science. But individualism was robbed of its sense of power by contradiction. What contradiction? On the one hand he is an idealist, and on the other hand he believes he is flawed — that is his own contradiction.

At that time, men were perhaps supposed to enlist in the military, and they went secretly rejoicing, expecting to complete... expecting a period before full adulthood, when decisions would be made for them, and they could stand by and watch, and those who were not yet fully prepared to face life could also leave it with honor and dignity.

The way this passage is expressed is not easy to understand. What he wants to say is: in some places, when a man reaches a certain age, he must enlist in the military; he has to go whether he wants to or not. Taiwan is like this, for example; whether you graduate from university or high school, at a certain age you must go into the military for two years⁶. Israel is the same; young people must enlist and serve as soldiers, unless they are physically disabled; otherwise everyone has to go. You say, what about forging a medical certificate? No, once caught it is considered draft evasion, and the punishment is very severe.

What he means is that this kind of compulsory conscription actually makes young people go joyfully and excitedly. Do not think that being a soldier is a bad thing; in many places, many eras, and many regions, people were incredibly excited to become soldiers. Even today, in many propaganda films in mainland China, whether about the War of Resistance Against Japan, the War of Liberation, or peacetime, being a soldier is always portrayed as a very glorious thing.

Here Seth once again strips away the disguise — this person always tells the truth, and indeed he is not popular.

These young people went cheering and rejoicing, before they truly became adults. Do you know how old people generally are when they become soldiers? Generally you can join the military at 18, and during wars in the past it was even younger — 16, and even younger before that, thirteen or fourteen, as long as you could carry a gun you could go. There are not many child soldiers now, but there were many in the past. Even at 18, in America you are still a minor — in America you are not an adult until 21⁷, and before 21 you cannot buy alcohol or cigarettes; otherwise it is illegal. But at 18 you can join the military and go to the battlefield to kill people. A minor, whose thinking is not even fully formed, and they hand him a gun and tell him to kill people. This society is just that absurd.

What does the latter part of the passage mean: those who are not yet fully prepared to face life can also leave it with honor and dignity — before he has even tasted life, he leaves life carrying a vain sense of honor, dying on the battlefield for his country, sent back with the flag draped over his coffin. How glorious. He does not yet know what life is, and he leaves life carrying a sense of honor and dignity.

This is why governments in every country do not like his material — he always tells the truth. A young person who is not even an adult, who does not understand the meaning of life and death, goes to the battlefield to be cannon fodder. That is what Seth is saying.

This is a kind of fanaticism.

He says that in the past, and even in your world today, there were monasteries and convents — just like Buddhist temples in China. Those who did not live in the normal world like other people could go to monasteries to pursue their other goals. But the decisions about where they lived, what they did, where they went, and how they lived their lives were all made for them.

These people are also joining another kind of fanatical organization; if you trace it to the root, it is the same. Seth strips away the disguises of humanity layer by layer, thoroughly. You hide away in a monastery or a temple to practice, and you think you have escaped fanatical sects, escaped what you consider religious indoctrination, escaped the nonsense of scientists — do you think you have escaped fanaticism? No. You changed locations, changed organizations, and continued to join a fanatical sect. Same principle — as long as you join this kind of spiritual practice group, you do not have to worry about anything that comes after; someone has arranged it all for you.

You say, do people not yearn for freedom? How could anyone like living this kind of life? But there are people who are willing to live this kind of life; you cannot argue with that.

Usually such people were bound together by common interests and a sense of honor, and in this century there was no retaliation to fear.

In the past, you could not just say, I want to pursue whatever religion I want. Whatever religion the place you lived in believed in, that was what you had to believe. If you said, I do not believe in the religion of our area, I want to go somewhere else — then your family would suffer retaliation; it was unacceptable to have a rebellious child in the family. Modern society does not have this; you do not need to be afraid; you can do whatever you want. You can live collectively with people from all over the world who share common interests and common pursuits, for the sake of a collective sense of honor and common interest.

Are there many such organizations? Countless; if you look carefully, there are very, very many. What Seth wants to tell you is: this kind of organization is also a fanatical sect; it is the same; there is no essential difference.

Fanatical sects, however, deal primarily with fear. One of their greatest characteristics — to observe whether an organization is a fanatical sect, just look at whether it deals in fear. All fanatical sects use fear as a stimulus. They further erode the individual's power, making them afraid to leave.

They use fear to intimidate people — whether with hell or with all sorts of bizarre methods, saying that if you leave our organization you are finished, you will be seized by demons, you will be cursed. You made a commitment when you joined, and now you have betrayed us. It is easy to invite a god but hard to send one away; once you join, getting out is difficult. They will frighten you, make you believe in some religious leader, some person, erode your personal power, and tell you that you are nothing, that only our master is truly advanced — some guru, some immortal, some deity can channel spirits, reaching up to the heavens and directly to the celestial court, receiving instructions from higher spirits through meditation. He is the disciple of some immortal, some disciple beside the Buddha — all kinds of things come out.

That is all nonsense. As long as someone talks to you about this kind of thing, it is all nonsense, no matter what they say; that is the lowest form of nonsense.

Since this question happened to come up today, I will stop here. In society we often encounter such people; they say they can channel this or that, and some even say they can channel Seth, some say they can channel Guanyin Bodhisattva, and some even wrote a book called The Love of Guanyin⁸, seemingly written under a foreigner's name. After channeling, they cannot say anything of substance; they just say that you humans do not understand the truth of the universe at all; what do you know? Can you even understand the Buddhist sutras? Do you know what those four lines of the Heart Sutra mean? No one in the whole world to this day can understand them. They scold you at length, but when it comes to actually saying what is correct, they cannot say it either; they just say you are not worthy of understanding these things.

For this kind of so-called channeling, you have to use discernment. You cannot just believe anyone who comes along claiming to channel. Channeling is when, during meditation or sitting practice, your state of consciousness opens up and you can communicate with many beings -- for example, Jane connected with Seth. But not every consciousness, not every nonphysical consciousness, is a high spirit or a person of high attainment. Their levels are uneven, just like the levels of us humans. Among these souls, those with a realm as high as Seth are extremely rare. Do not casually connect with some so-called high spirit and assume they are something special. Teacher Xiyu often says that his level is not even as high as yours, so do not always treat him as something or other. The ideas and suggestions he gives you are not as good as your own.

How do you judge them? It is simple: if they scare you based on fear -- if you do not do this, such and such will happen -- as long as fear is the basis, it is all descending, the realm is extremely low, and you do not need to pay attention to it. Do not assume that just because a spirit is nonphysical, its level is very high. If that were true, would not every one of us automatically become very high-level after death? Then what would be the point of spiritual practice? Would suicide make you high-level? Of course not. So do not be superstitious about these things. Just listen to whether what they say makes sense. This is what Buddhism has always emphasized: rely on the Dharma, not on the person. You cannot say that just because the Buddha said it, it is absolute truth; you cannot say that just because a certain person said it, it is absolute truth. You must look at whether what they say makes sense. If it does not make sense, then even if the Buddha said it, it does not work.

But look at many religions today, especially Tibetan esoteric Buddhism -- I will bring it up again -- many of its views completely violate the spirit of Buddhism. Tibetan esoteric Buddhism requires you to respect your guru above all; the guru is the person you should obey most, and whatever he says you should obey. Besides making offerings to him and giving him money to spend, you also have to listen to him. The guru is like the Buddha alive in the world; you must regard the guru as the Buddha and obey him unconditionally. What kind of nonsense is this? Gurus have high and low levels; why should what he says be right? But if you say this, you cannot survive in Tibetan esoteric Buddhist circles -- you will be directly kicked out.

These fanatical sects are corroding your personal power. Remember firmly: never fall into them. If a group has power, and apart from that group's power being vested in its leader, individuals have no power -- whenever you see a religious group or belief organization promoting this kind of view, stay far away from it. As long as they say only so-and-so has power, and no one except the leader, the guru, the head has any power, just smile, turn around, and leave. Do not argue with them; it is useless. And do not try to pull others out; just get yourself out.

Because some people need this kind of thing. Seth has always said: in this society there really is a group of people who need to hand over their freedom, hand over their sense of power, and need an organization to enslave them before they feel at ease -- arranging food and housing for them, ideally even arranging a wife. How is that possible? How is it not possible? Look at many regions: some religions really do arrange wives. If you do not know about this, you can look up what role the "dakini" plays in Tibetan Buddhism or esoteric Buddhism, or the abbreviated term "Buddha-mother." I will not expose it further now; it is too ridiculous. I am just telling you: if you want to look it up, search online for "dakini" or "Buddha-mother," and you will find long passages of introduction.

For example, those who died in the mass suicide at Jonestown⁹ -- they themselves had suicidal tendencies.

They wanted to do this. They had no intention of living on. Their ideology had shattered, had been destroyed, so the only option was suicide -- because the idealism they believed in no longer existed.

Because their idealism had become so divorced from actuality that only its ashes were left to them.

Apart from suicide, there was no other road.

The leader of Jonestown was at heart an idealist. Was this person evil? He was not an evil person. He himself was an idealist who wanted to lead humanity onto an ideal path and build an ideal kingdom. But when does an idealist turn into a fanatic? Is idealism bad? No. If everyone in the whole world became an idealist, that would be a good thing. But how did this idealist eventually evolve into a fanatic? And when did the pursuit of the good come to have disastrous consequences? And how does scientific idealism equate with Three Mile Island -- which nearly became a human disaster -- and with the potential disasters that exist in nuclear waste storage or the manufacture of atomic bombs?

A couple of days ago in the group I saw someone post a passage, a screenshot, and that passage was very well written. I have forgotten the context. The meaning of that passage was this: a person said, I am someone who was in a Nazi concentration camp. I saw that the people who came to poison us were all scientists; the people who came to kill us were also doctors or nurses. In other words, the people in the concentration camps who cruelly harmed and slaughtered their fellow human beings were all well-educated professionals from various disciplines. Then this person said, I demand that our current education be abolished. Our current education produces exactly this kind of person -- they are also scientists, doctors, nurses, professionals, engineers, and they are manufacturing gas chambers, manufacturing atomic bombs, killing people like us. There is something wrong with our education. If there were not something wrong with our education, how could it produce people like this? People who hand over such inhumanity, who can cruelly harm their own kind?

That passage was a bit extreme, true. But it hit the nail on the head regarding the core problem of our education: our education is an education without soul, without life. It only teaches everyone science and knowledge, but it does not teach each of us to respect humanity, to respect life, let alone respect your soul. That is our education today. Such an education produces scientists, yes, but it may also produce scientists who destroy humanity. So there is something wrong with our education. That passage was very well written. I cannot remember where I saw it. If any friends in the group can find that passage, you can post it for everyone to see. That passage was very jarring, but very apt.

Then Seth begins to talk about what the people who live in tornado zones are thinking.

Those who live in tornado zones carry a tornado reality in their hearts and minds as a psychological backdrop.

This passage is a bit hard to understand. Simply put, people who live in tornado or danger zones already have a psychological cognition of the reality of tornadoes -- they already have tornadoes in their minds, they are psychologically prepared, they have this kind of psychological scene, and it has become a psychological backdrop.

All of the events of their lives are punctuated and seasoned to some extent by the possibility of that disaster.

Psychologically, they already have the possibility of a tornado existing. Living in that place, they are psychologically prepared for the fact that "this place is prone to tornadoes," and they have already psychologically prepared themselves to some extent for this possibility. And when a tornado actually happens, that psychological preparation adds a certain seasoning to the actual event -- they have already rehearsed it: what to do if a tornado comes? Will the house be blown down? We bought windstorm insurance; will the insurance pay out? And so on. When the event actually happens, they find that this tornado was not as severe as they imagined, and some people even feel a little disappointed.

They feel that at any time they may be prompted to face the greatest challenge, to rely upon their strongest abilities to respond, to face a test of endurance.

These people need the stimulation of tornadoes or other disasters to spur them to continually challenge the greatest challenge. When a tornado comes and houses are ripped from the ground, they want to face this challenge, to pass through this challenge, to rely on their strongest response abilities in the face of this challenge, and also to test their endurance -- because tornadoes come again and again.

Why do they do this?

Because they use such a psychological and physical backdrop to maintain within themselves the vitality of that particular quality.

The essence of these people is to use these disasters to maintain certain special vitality. This special vitality cannot be stimulated except in the face of great disasters, and these people hope for these disasters to stimulate certain special vitality within them. It can only burst forth in the face of such blows. Because they are the kind of people who like to feel themselves pitted against challenges -- the kind who do not mind big trouble, who like to accept challenges.

Usually the existence of such a possibility, and its acceptance, does provide an exterior situation of crisis.

This is indeed an exterior crisis -- the possibility that disaster will come. And for the individual and the group:

It symbolizes independence and inner crisis.

It represents both independence and one's own strong side, and also the inner premonition of and preparation for crisis.

And as the people handle that crisis situation, they symbolically handle their inner crisis.

What they actually need to deal with is something inner, but they need to borrow exterior natural disasters to do it. Through responding, through their own independence, through overcoming these disasters, through taking back their power and vitality, they obtain a satisfaction of an inner need. What is their inner crisis? It is having no sense of power, finding no stimulation, finding no vitality, life being dull. And this very stimulation can arouse them.

So this natural disaster, while dealing with the exterior matter, more importantly deals with the inner crisis.

In a fashion, those people believe in such exterior confrontation, and even rely upon a lifetime of a series of crises of varying degrees of severity for that purpose.

Many people have experienced some natural disasters in their lives, stood up from them, recovered, and after enduring the blow, this self-confidence, this inner strong confidence, can support them for a lifetime. When they face any difficulty in the future, the moment they recall that they survived a typhoon, a hurricane, a tornado, raging floods, being buried in an earthquake, they can face any disaster. This kind of belief is something they can use for a lifetime.

Do you understand now? Do you understand why these people are still willing to live in these places? If Seth did not analyze this issue, we would not be able to understand their deeper reasons.

And those who survive, regardless of their circumstances, feel that they have been given a renewal of life.

He got his life back. We Chinese often say, "Those who survive a great disaster are bound to have good fortune later." Where does this later good fortune come from? Right here. The great disaster did not kill him, and he feels he has gained something extra; this life was snatched back by himself, so he can more freely enjoy this life and live very freely and easily. He is not like those who have never experienced life-and-death tribulations, who are timid and fearful every day, clinging to life and afraid of death. He is someone who has already died once and is no longer afraid.

They could have been victims, and were not.

Surviving a great disaster, in terms of Chinese culture.

Others, then, use the same situation as a reason for no longer insisting upon living.

The others refer to those who perished. The survivors have already been explained. What are those who perished like? They wanted to use the excuse of a natural disaster to conveniently pass away. Therefore, they appear to be victims of the exterior environment, victims of nature, victims of natural disaster, but at the same time they save face -- I was not committing suicide, I was very strong, but I could not do anything about the natural disaster; I was crushed to death by an earthquake, drowned by a flood. They became victims of the exterior environment while also preserving face for themselves.

In other words, these people wanted to die -- to put it bluntly -- but did not want to die in an ugly way, so they used this method to both save face and fulfill their own wish.

Seth finally says to have a good, even happy evening, and that the material Ruburt discussed about plants may lead him into some of the most creative expansions and new developments of his consciousness. This is a suggestion for Ruburt.

This session seems not to have anything too deep, but it says a great deal about deep-level social phenomena. Carefully savoring the social phenomena in it, and the roles different people play in these social phenomena and their inner activities, is very interesting. This book is called The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, and its psychological grasp of mass events is very accurate.

Session 850

Several Faces of the Idealist

This section is Session 850 of the book, May 2, 1979, Wednesday evening, beginning at 9:49 p.m. Rob came on right away and said that class started a bit later than usual today, because at nine o'clock they watched the first half hour of a television drama, and then Seth came through.

Seth said, let us look at the many ways in which the idealist may appear. Sometimes it is difficult to spot the idealist, because idealists are clothed in such pessimistic garb. We think idealists should be exuberant, yet sometimes they are pessimistic, and they give people such a pessimistic impression that all you can see is a kind of mocking or sarcastic outer display. On the other hand, many people who speak with the most idealistic enthusiasm, who speak in an exuberant manner, are privately filled with pessimism and the darkest aspects of despair.

You cannot tell only from outward appearances. Some idealists are pessimistic on the surface and look like pessimists; some people are exuberant on the surface and look like idealists, but privately they are filled with despair and the darkest gloom.

He said if you are an idealist, and at the same time you feel quite powerless in the world, and you also feel quite powerless in life, and if your idealism is general, exaggerated, and unrelated to any practical plan of concrete expression, then you will find that you are indeed in trouble. What this is saying is, what kind of state does an idealist fall into in life? They become someone who has not adopted any concrete plan or effective, workable approach in actual life, yet is still an idealist. In this kind of situation, what problems will arise in real life? He began to give examples.

He said not long ago, one evening, a small group of people gathered in the living room, and among them was a guest from another part of the United States, who began to talk about the state of the country. This kind of situation is common, especially in gatherings where men are in the majority. When men get together, they often tend to hold forth on the country — people from every country are much the same, talking about the current state of the whole nation, and so on.

Then he began to criticize at great length the greed and ignorance of all his fellow citizens. We often do the same thing ourselves, saying that this society is utterly morally corrupt, drowning in luxury and pleasure, all about money above everything. He said people would do anything for money — there is an old Chinese saying, "money can make the ghosts turn the millstone," which is the same idea.

And as he continued his monologue, he said that humanity itself would almost inevitably bring about its own destruction. There are many people like this too. He was full of pessimism about the future. He felt that if humanity kept pursuing things in such a materialistic way, it would certainly destroy itself. Then this person gave many examples of evil deeds committed for money, meaning many people would stop at nothing for money.

A lively discussion followed, and everyone joined in. This topic is a good one, and it easily draws people in. Anyone can jump in and offer examples, righteously indignant, but no opposing opinion could enter this person's mind. He held to this viewpoint the whole time. When others expressed the opposite view, saying that the world's future would not be destroyed, and that it would not be as dark as he imagined, such views could not enter his thinking.

This person, let us call him Roger. Inwardly this person was an idealist, and he believed that people in this world rarely had any power. He was an idealist, but he believed that people in real life had no power, and therefore in his own lifetime he did not pursue his personal ideals. All he did was talk about them every day. There are very many people like this in reality — complaining, complaining, complaining, then saying what the ideal situation should be, and how dark reality is, but then feeling that since reality is so dark, he himself is powerless, and so in practice he takes no action at all.

He said everyone is a slave of the system. He felt that in life he had no way to contend with this system. He believed the system was too enormous, and he could only be its slave — including himself, and that was one direction of his beliefs. He had a routine job in the local business world, a very conservative, very stable job, which he had held for more than twenty years, yet he always hated going to work. There are many people like this, everywhere in our lives. But at the same time he refused to try any other range of activities that were open to him, because he was afraid of losing what he had.

A person like this is himself an idealist, complaining every day in life, yet he holds an extremely stable and seemingly meaningless job, and he will not change it. You say you are an idealist? Then within the scope of what you can do, go change society a little. No, he will not. He will not go, because he feels it cannot be changed. On one hand he hates the system, and on the other hand he is a firm supporter of the system. He does not go change the system; instead he becomes its greatest accomplice, its most steadfast supporter — supporting it through his actions, while in his heart and with his mouth he attacks the system every day.

He felt that he had betrayed himself, and he projected that betrayal outward. In his own heart he knew he was betraying himself — how was he betraying himself? On one hand he wanted to change the system, and on the other hand he firmly, in the opposite direction, upheld the system, and in his actual work he made no changes at all. He had twisted himself into a knot, or lived himself in reverse. He betrayed his own ideals, until in the political and economic world in which he found himself, all he could see was betrayal. Because he had betrayed himself, he then saw that other people in society were the same — he felt this was quite normal, that he was not the only one, that others were the same too, all doing jobs they did not like, all carrying out actions that upheld a system they did not like.

If he had begun to realize his ideal work through his own personal life, he would not have fallen into such a situation. If he had begun in practice to make concrete changes, to realize his ideals, he would not have fallen into the state of grumbling every day. Because the expression of ideals brings satisfaction. But his current work was completely opposite to his ideals, so not only was he unsatisfied, he was also full of complaints and a sense of powerlessness.

Then that sense of powerlessness naturally contributed to the further expression of practical idealism — how was it expressed? He said that people like this Roger speak in the same way in any social group, and to that extent he spreads a negative and despairing atmosphere. He began to amplify this thing, spreading this despairing and negative atmosphere everywhere.

However, Seth said he did not want to define this person only by that attitude — it is not that we should confine this person within such a limitation. Because when he forgot the great gulf between his idealism and his actual life, and talked about other activities, at those times he was again full of charming energy. As long as he got away from this problem he could not solve — the great gulf between idealism and reality — and talked about other matters, he immediately became full of charming energy again, like a normal person.

If he had relied on his natural personal interests, and chosen one of them as his life's work, then that experience could have nourished him far, far more than his present one. Seth said if he did something he himself liked, it would give him far, far more nourishment than he now has — at present there is no nourishment at all.

He could have been an excellent teacher, that is one possibility. He talked eloquently every day, he was never at a loss for words, and he was actually suited to being a teacher. Someone had once offered him such an opportunity, a job that would have made him much happier, but he so believed in his lack of power that he did not dare take advantage of those opportunities.

However, there were some satisfactions in his life that kept him from narrowing his focus even further. He did not live every day in an atmosphere of pessimism and despair; he had some small hobbies and interests, and in these he could still find satisfaction.

Idealists, Pessimists, and Fanatics

If you want to make this world better, then you are an idealist. This is Seth's definition of idealism. Is idealism good? Yes, it is good. The people who truly drive the world forward are all idealists -- you can look carefully and see that those who have real significance and influence on the development of human society are all people who want to make society better.

If you want to make this world better, but you believe it cannot be changed in the slightest, then you are a pessimist. You want to make the world better, but you also believe you cannot move it. You feel the system is too rigid, too powerful, and that an individual's strength is like throwing an egg against a rock, with no effect on it at all -- then you are called a pessimist, and your idealism will only cling to you inside your heart and only make you more uncomfortable.

If you want to make this world better, but you believe that no matter what efforts anyone makes, it will only get worse and worse, then you are a person who has truly lost heart, perhaps a misguided idealist.

If you want to make this world better, and if you decide to do so, to take action, regardless of what price you or others may pay, as long as it is at any cost -- once such words are spoken, no matter what price is paid, and regardless of the risks -- and if you believe that those ends can justify any means you are able to use, then you are a fanatic.

He gave fanatics this kind of definition, very simply: people who will stop at nothing for their goals are called fanatics. A fanatic is an inversion of idealism; its predecessor is idealism -- without such a foundation of idealism, it would not have turned into fanaticism.

Usually they are vague and grandiose dreamers. Vague means he does not have a definite method or steps for realizing his ideal, nor a concrete, implementable plan that can be put into practice, yet he still has a vague idea; grandiose means very unrealistic. Their plans almost entirely ignore the whole range of normal life -- they do not consider reality at all; they only focus their plans on that most ideal state, disregarding reality.

They are unrealized idealists. They want to take one big stride, to do one great thing, to reach the goal in one step; they do not like changing society bit by bit, down to earth. Perhaps indeed they are not satisfied with waiting for the actual workings of positive expression -- they are not satisfied with concrete and effective ways of working that can have positive expression in real life; they feel this is too slow, and they demand immediate action.

They want to remake this world in their own image. They cannot tolerate opposing concepts. They are the most self-righteous of the self-righteous, and they will sacrifice almost anything, including their own lives and the lives of others. They will rationalize almost any evil in pursuit of those goals.

We often see this kind of thing. Many extreme terrorists and extreme religious fanatics commit many terrorist acts that endanger the security of human society, all starting from this kind of point of departure -- they feel that as long as the goal is great enough and reasonable enough, any illegal act they commit is justified.

Two Examples: Starting From Where You Are

Recently two young women came to see Ruburt. They were angry and exuberant, full of energy and youthful idealism, and they wanted to change the world. While playing with a Ouija board, they received messages telling them that they could indeed take part in a great mission. One of them wanted to quit her job and stay home, burying herself in channeling work, hoping that in that way she could fulfill her role of changing the world; the other was a clerk sitting in an office.

There are quite a lot of people like this, especially once you have studied spiritual knowledge and entered spiritual circles, you will often see such people. They carry great ideals of remaking the world and liberating humanity. Every day they communicate with aliens, with some kind of starship, extraterrestrial beings, an interstellar federation, in all sorts of ways, and every day they live in a kind of persecution paranoia, saying that the entire Earth is controlled by evil aliens, and that they are the representatives of the good and righteous aliens, meant to serve as the part on Earth that allies with the aliens, to prevent Earth from being persecuted. Every day they have to contact these mysterious organizations, receive their messages, and sit there every day sending messages to the aliens.

When you first encounter this, you may feel it is quite amazing, and you may also want to join such meaningful work. But once you have met more people, it no longer seems so amazing to you. If you only see one or two, you think it is wonderful; but when you see ten or eight, dozens, or over a hundred people all doing the same kind of thing, a sense of amusement arises in your heart.

There is nothing more exciting than the wish to make the world a better place, and nothing more worth achieving than that. That is indeed everyone's task -- to make the world better, this truly is something everyone should do.

You begin with your own life and activities, by striving within the unique scope of your own activity. You begin in a corner of your office, or on the production line, or in your own company, or in the kitchen -- you begin from where you are. The foothold for wanting to make the world better is where you are right now, the environment in which you currently work and live. Start from there first. Do not first think of a huge plan, a grandiose goal; start from the things around you that you can change, that you can decide, that you can accomplish. Do not come up with a plan so enormous that you do not even know where to begin, because then you will easily fall into a very awkward situation.

If this Roger mentioned earlier had started from where he was, then today he would be a different, happier, and more contented person, and to a certain degree, his influence on all the other people he encountered would also have been far more beneficial. He would not have become the negative and despairing person he is now, filled with disappointment about the future on every occasion, spreading this negative emotion everywhere he goes.

When you actualize your own abilities, in real life, when you express your personal idealism in daily life by giving play to your greatest abilities, then you are making the world a better place. And do not think about doing some big thing, some great plan; start from the concrete, small, everyday things around you that you can do yourself, that you can change at any time, that you can accomplish.

Sarah: A Positive Example

He came to class a bit late this evening, because Ruburt and Joseph were watching the beginning of a movie. Why? Because a young woman I will call Sarah was in it, playing an actress.

Sarah wrote to Ruburt, telling her about this film she had made. Sarah the actress is capable, and she relies on her abilities, developing them in a practical way. She believes she forms her own reality, and she has eliminated the limiting belief that "she is not good enough to succeed," as well as the doubt that "it is too hard to make it in show business." Many people in show business say that the entertainment industry is too hard to break into.

The satisfaction of her performance led her toward broader creativity, and toward her natural sense of personal power. Through developing those abilities in a personal way, she will contribute to the happiness of others -- Sarah is a positive example. She removed all those beliefs that limited her: that she was not good enough, that show business was too hard to break into -- all those beliefs are gone. She believed she could create her own reality, and as a result she got such an opportunity. Because of her performance in the television series, she has greater confidence to create the reality she wants.

She wants to bring positive, optimistic joy to people -- this is the simplest point she has in mind. Whether she is acting in a comedy or an ordinary television drama, she wants to bring joy to others. This is what she considers her own contribution and a way she can make the world a better place. For example, she will try to bring a greater sense of value onto the screen, and for this she is willing to do the necessary work.

Another Young Man and His Predicament

He then gave a counterexample. Recently a young man came to him. He was a very talented and intelligent young man. He had not attended college, but he had gone through a training school and held a rather specialized position at a nearby factory.

He was also an idealist, passionate about developing a grand plan for novel mathematical and scientific systems—remember, he had a grand plan. He was working on a grand plan to combine mathematical and scientific systems, and he was very gifted in that area. He wanted to make the world a much better place. Did he have talent? Yes. He had not gone to college, but he was extremely talented in this regard. But think about what he wanted to do—was it not too big for his current abilities? He was thinking about a grand plan to combine mathematics and science, and thereby transform human society and make life better—this was not something his present abilities could accomplish.

At the same time, he looked with horror and disgust at the older people who had been working there for many years. Because he had such a great ideal and plan, and because he himself had talent, he looked down on the other people working with him in the factory during his ordinary job. He despised them from the bottom of his heart, feeling that they were just lowly laborers, people who sold their physical strength, while he was a young man with a great ideal.

He got drunk every Saturday, drunk as soon as he drank, and could only think of the narrow world of their families. He made up his mind that he would never let the same thing happen to him. And for those "things everyone does," he was reprimanded several times—here it does not say what "things everyone does" refers to; it could mean that this young man went drinking, or it could mean that he went looking for women. He protested that other people did the same thing and were not caught, so why was he the one who got caught? His mood became very depressed, and he felt that his luck was terrible.

At the same time, he did not consider trying to go to college. Although he had talent, he lacked systematic study, and realizing his grand plan was almost impossible. He also did not want to get a scholarship, or to increase his knowledge in his chosen profession—what he wanted to do really required very specialized knowledge, whether in the fields of mathematics or science. He also did not want to try to understand the experience of his coworkers—he looked down on the experience of people older than him who had worked for a long time.

He did not believe that he could change the world by starting from where he was, and he was afraid to rely on an actual expression of his own abilities. So he became caught in a very tangled place: on the one hand, he wanted to change the world through the combination of mathematics and science, and he had a grand plan; but in his actual work, he was in a position where he had opportunities to make changes—because he worked in a factory, he could improve the factory's equipment, assembly lines, and production processes, or apply some new technologies there. Was that not using what he had learned to make changes? But he simply would not do these things. He felt they were useless—changing some factory assembly lines or products was not enough to change the world.

In China we often call this kind of person "eyes high, hands low": the ideas in his mind are very grand, but his actual ability is insufficient. Moreover, he was afraid that if he put his energy into this direction—relying on the idea of changing the world through actual work—it would hinder the realization of his larger personal goals, so he still would not do it. Yet youth is full of power, so he was quite likely to find a way to give his abilities a greater expression, and thereby increase his own sense of power—while at the same time, he remained in dark despair.

A New Commandment

Idealism presupposes two opposing things, good and evil, so how is it that the pursuit of the good so often leads to the expression of evil? Since one is an idealist, what one pursues must surely be the good, so why does it ultimately bring about evil results?

On that point, we must look one step further. In practical terms, there is one most important commandment, one that can be used as a measuring rod. This commandment actually quotes a line from the Bible: "Thou shalt not kill." This is a commandment found in many religions. This commandment is already stated very clearly, because in most cases you know when you have killed someone — he used "in most cases," because sometimes people kill unintentionally, and he set aside that kind of accidental possibility.

This commandment is far easier to follow than "you shall love your neighbor as yourself¹⁰" — because many people do not love themselves to begin with, so it is very hard for them to love their neighbors with that same love. The idea of "love your neighbor" is that if you love your neighbor, then you will not do him harm, much less kill him. But the commandment "thou shalt not kill" says that you may not kill your neighbor, regardless of how you feel about him.

So then, let us state a new commandment:

Thou shalt not kill. Even in the pursuit of your ideal, thou shalt not kill.

You might ask, what is the difference here? Is not the prohibition against killing already clear enough? Why add another clause? This clause seems unimportant, but in fact it is crucial, because many people say — I can kill for the sake of pursuing my ideal.

In practical terms, it means you will not wage war for the sake of your peace. This commandment is far more important. For example, many people say, I wage war, I kill people on the battlefield for the sake of peace, because only war can bring peace — using violence to counter violence, that is the view of many people. He says this violates this commandment. And it means you do not kill animals in the laboratory — taking their lives in order to protect the sanctity of human life would be a primary directive.

He emphasizes this commandment again, and this is the key point of this session. For people have killed for the sake of their ideals at least as much as they have killed for greed and intense desire or the pursuit of power itself — no less at all. In our real lives, there are especially many examples of this.

If you truly consider the possibility of killing for the sake of pursuing your ideal, you are a fanatic. If you have ever entertained such a thought, that for the sake of pursuing a lofty and great ideal, sacrificing the lives of a small number of people is acceptable, then you are already a fanatic.

For example, your ideal might be to produce endless energy for human use, and you might believe in that ideal so strongly — nuclear energy, for instance, nuclear power generation to enhance the convenience of life — that you consider risking the loss of some lives in order to achieve that convenience. That is fanaticism.

He turns the point around and points again to the root cause of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident¹¹. The root of that event was scientific fanatics — for the sake of obtaining the possibility of endless use of energy, although nuclear power plants carry a very low probability of risk, and although that risk is already very low, once it occurs, it threatens human life. Yet under the great ideal of pursuing the production of endless energy for human use, they felt these possible costs were acceptable. Such people are fanatics, no matter what their reasons are.

He says he means that you are unwilling to take the practical steps in physical reality that could achieve that ideal, yet you believe the end justifies the means. Undoubtedly some lives might be lost, and humanity as a whole would benefit — many people think this way: for the sake of the development of all humanity and the progress of human civilization, sacrificing the lives of a small number of people in exchange for the progress of all humanity is worth it. Such thinking exists in the minds of many people, and you must remove it.

Look at it from another angle: what if the person being sacrificed were you? What if you were the cost? Would you still hold such a view? You would not. But when the cost is someone else, you will insist that this is a very reasonable idea — sacrificing partial interests for the sake of the overall interest is only right. He says that is a rationalization.

The sanctity of life cannot be sacrificed for the convenience of living. You cannot sacrifice the cost of life for the convenience of obtaining energy for living, otherwise the very quality of life itself will be damaged. What you damage is your influence on the value of the essence of life.

In the same way, suppose your ideal is to protect human life, for example you do drug research, or you do pathology research, and in pursuing that ideal, you give fatal diseases to generation after generation of various animals, sacrificing their lives. For the sake of human happiness and human health, in doing drug research and animal experiments, you sacrifice the lives of who knows how many generations, batch after batch of animals.

Your excuse might be that humans have souls and animals do not, that you think animals are inferior and can be used for experiments, and that the quality of life in animals is of a lesser kind. But whatever the rationalization is, this is fanaticism. No matter what the excuse or reason is — whether it is for medical research, biological research, scientific research — no matter what the reason is, it is fanaticism. And the essence of human life is thereby damaged as well, because when you do not cherish the lives of animals, the essence of human life itself is also affected. For those who sacrifice any kind of life also lose some of their respect for all life.

The end does not justify the means — this is emphasized very strongly. So you see, Seth on this issue is completely at odds with mainstream medical and biological pharmaceutical practice — even today, our field still uses large numbers of these experimental animals in massive amounts of experimentation every day. So Seth here issues his strong appeal: we cannot, for the sake of some seemingly lofty ideals, in our lives, in our work, in our reality, disregard the sanctity of the existence of other lives, nor fail to respect the dignity of other lives. This is an extremely terrible thing, and it must be stopped.

After-Session Notes

By 10:58 p.m., the session had ended. At the end, Rob said that Seth's delivery had been excellent all along, that the whole session had almost surged forward, and that for the most part it had come through at just about the speed I could keep up with. Rob said, I am really glad to be back on the book; I know I feel this way about every Seth book. I was guessing what Seth would talk about, and how he would handle this or that. I remembered those examples about idealists -- he gave many examples -- and the new commandment he gave. Before the session, there was not a trace of any of that in my mind.

After studying this session, you only need to remember this one commandment: that is, you shall not kill. No matter what lofty ideal you are pursuing, you shall not kill people, not even in the pursuit of your ideal. Then toward the end of the session, he extended this "killing" to animals -- killing animals should also not be done, but he felt that most people probably could not manage that, so he set the commandment as "you shall not kill people," which is something everyone can do.

What Seth says here may refer to a radical philosophy about change that Jane and I recently encountered. They had recently been studying a new philosophy, which said that in order to bring about a revolution, violence could be permitted, and that revolution would in turn lead to a new era -- in that utopian society, people would not have to suppress themselves, and could unify their reason and intuition. Is this not the ideal Seth has always been trying to realize in The Magical Approach? That is, that people can use their reason and intuition at the same time. So here Seth issued a warning to the two of them not to study this kind of radical philosophy. Many people have held this fashionable view over the past few decades, and even now there are still people who hold it and have never given it up.

Rob and Jane were wondering what unavoidable contradictions would surface once people actually achieved such an ideal state and society -- because given humanity's inherently ever-unstable creative nature, they would immediately alter the hypothetical utopia they had proposed. They also entertained some playful thoughts: if these radicals were to find themselves personally threatened or attacked by the very violence they advocated as permissible, how would they react? If the utopia they envisioned had already been established, what would the next step be? Given humanity's never-satisfied creativity, they would certainly not be satisfied with their utopian society; they would come up with new ideas and new developments. And if these radicals, in order to realize this utopia, did not hesitate to use violence and considered violence permissible, then when these people themselves became the victims of such violence, how would they feel?

The second note is about animal experimentation. He said Seth was referring to the practice of raising white mice, rabbits, and other animals in laboratories in order to sell them to scientists and researchers. Those researchers use them for experiments that would not be considered ethical if performed on human beings. We cannot experiment on people, but we feel it is acceptable to experiment on animals, because we think animals are lower beings.

Conversely, if extraterrestrials were to experiment on humans, would that mean humans are lower than extraterrestrials? If extraterrestrials experimented on us, could we accept that? Of course we could not accept it -- we would feel it is an act utterly against the natural order, something that should be punished by heaven and condemned by the entire universe. Yet conversely, when you experiment on animals, why do you not feel that you should be punished by heaven? Why do you not feel that the universe should wipe out humanity? Why is it that when extraterrestrials experiment on humans, you feel those extraterrestrials should be destroyed by some greater power? We humans may be weak, but you still cannot experiment on us. See how righteous that reasoning sounds, yet conversely, when he experiments on animals, why does he not speak from the animals' perspective in the same way?

For example, many generations of white mice are bred through inbreeding in sanitary environments. Why inbreed? Because they want to obtain genetic purity -- they need to do experiments and hope the white mice have very pure genes, and how do you get purity? Inbreeding is the purest. But whether in animals or humans, inbreeding produces deformities. These studies of ideal versions of humanity's innate or acquired defects -- studying what consequences inbreeding has in animals, to see whether humans would also have such consequences if they inbred, and once those consequences appear, how these samples might be treated. For example, obesity, all kinds of cancers, including leukemia, epilepsy, various anemias, muscular dystrophy, and so on. Some animals are born as dwarfs, or hairless, or deformed, or missing limbs. Inbred mice are now used to test environmental risks for humans.

So Seth also pointed out this problem: the evil consequences of humanity's disrespect for life in this regard will lead to a disrespect for all life. In this session, Seth's main point was to put forward a new commandment, hoping that each of us will observe it in our actual lives, and then be able to see what tragic consequences will result from not observing this commandment, from goals that seem reasonable and seem ideal.

This session began at 9:39 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9, 1979.

Seth began by saying:

When you discuss the nature of good and evil, your position is indeed quite dangerous.

We often discuss good and evil, whether on the personal, social, or national level. He said that when you discuss this issue, it is actually very dangerous. Why?

Because many, or most, of humanity's atrocities against humanity have been committed in a misguided pursuit of the good.

This is a very interesting point. Do not always bring out good and evil for discussion, as if we need to do so many things in our pursuit of the good. But he said that many of the cruel acts in your human history were committed in the process of seeking good and pursuing good, in a misguided pursuit of the good. In other words, if you did not have good and evil, perhaps this problem would be less severe, and you would not have committed so many evils.

This statement, from another level, explains the Garden of Eden in the Bible. In the Bible, God punished Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil¹². Many people do not understand: is knowing good and evil not a good thing? Why did God become angry when they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and drive the two of them out of the Garden of Eden? In this chapter, in this session, Seth answers this question from a certain angle: why is it actually not good for us humans to know good and evil? Is this not subversive? Let us continue reading.

Session 852

Whose Good Is Good?

Seth then asks:

Whose good is the good you speak of? Is good absolute? Within the framework of your events, it is obvious that one person's good can be another person's disaster.

This is quite normal. By whose standard is your good and evil divided? For one country, it is a just war; for another country, it may be aggression, being invaded.

Seth says:

Hitler devoted himself with fanatical intent to pursuing his version of the good.

Hitler was pursuing the good. In many of his own writings, he kept emphasizing this point. He believed in the superiority and moral uprightness of the Aryan people, that is, the German Aryan people. In a grandiose and idealized version of reality, he saw the Aryan race placed in its proper position, becoming the natural princes of humanity. This was a kind of idealism on Hitler's part. He wanted to use a very upright, superior race to dominate all of humanity, to eliminate those bad, inferior races and peoples, so that humanity would be better off, wouldn't it? So when Hitler was pursuing his own version of the good, he himself considered it a great good deed, a great good deed for the welfare of humanity. Yet for humanity, it was indeed a disaster.

Hitler believed in heroic qualities¹³, and was blinded by an idealized superhuman version of the Aryan, strong in both body and mind.

He had a heroic characteristic. In order to achieve that goal, Hitler was quite willing to sacrifice the rest of humanity. He only wanted the Aryan race; all other races should be eliminated. Hitler also carried out work on pure Aryan genetic breeding¹⁴.

The evil ones must be removed.

These words, including those in the quotation marks above, may all be taken from some of Hitler's classic statements. That unfortunate refrain lies behind the beliefs of many fanatical factions, whether scientific or religious. What belief? It is the belief that "the evil ones must be removed." In Germany during World War II, there was both religious fanaticism and scientific fanaticism. Science and technology were all developed for military purposes. Beneath these two fanatical factions, there was this same belief, which was to eliminate all evil people.

Hitler's Aryan kingdom was a strange combination of the worst aspects of both religion and science.

He just spoke of religious fanaticism and scientific fanaticism, and as a result Germany combined the worst of these two together. In the era of World War II, in the country of Germany, religious fanaticism and scientific fanaticism were not only not restrained, but were actually encouraged and instigated.

The political arena is a stage where certain ideals can be put into practical operation. Therefore:

Hitler's concept of the good was not all-inclusive, and any action, no matter how brutal, was justified.

What he means is that Hitler's good was only good for the Aryan people. He wrapped it up as a good for all humanity, and then he could kill other peoples. Then did other peoples not belong to all humanity? Whom did Hitler's good actually represent? What he means is that the concept of the good was not all-inclusive.

Here it says that we should not reinforce good and evil. In Laozi's Tao Te Ching¹⁵, there are many passages that say exactly this. When I was young, I actually did not understand, and even did not accept it, saying that Laozi did not require good and evil, did not speak of good and evil. But as my own understanding and comprehension have improved, now I truly understand that if one day this world truly had no distinction between good and evil, it would actually be more beautiful. Many people may still not be able to understand this point of view; I can understand it. But listen to what Seth says, and gradually you will understand what he means.

How Nationalistic Good Turned into a Worldwide Catastrophe

How did Hitler's initially hollow and vague ideal of nationalistic good turn into a worldwide catastrophe for society?

Hitler's initially hollow and vague nationalistic good, this is the key, and it was the ideal of nationalistic good, how did it later turn into a worldwide catastrophe? We must be wary of nationalistic good, especially in some countries today. I am not referring only to certain countries here; many countries need to be wary. Any so-called good deeds carried out in the name of nationalism are very dangerous. Everyone should not indulge or encourage these so-called good deeds carried out in the name of nationalism.

Those steps, then, were the same motions and steps involved with any fanatical sect, as I mentioned earlier.

Hitler's daydreams became more and more grandiose.

His movements and mannerisms, that "Heil Hitler" gesture, you can tell he was also becoming more and more grandiose. Chaplin made a film specifically satirizing him, called The Great Dictator¹⁶, also known as The Dictator; you can go look it up.

From his perspective, the country—Germany's situation—seemed to grow worse with each day's events. In his heart he counted his humiliations over and over again, counted the humiliations of the country. After the middle and later stages of World War II, Germany had almost no good days. And Hitler both loved this country and loved this nation, yet he had brought this country and nation to such a state. He himself was also in great pain and humiliation. He could not bear it, until his heart became an almost completely closed environment, in which only certain concepts were allowed to enter. He had originally wanted to bring Germany to a better place, to rule the whole world, and instead he was thoroughly beaten.

All those who were not Aryans truly became enemies. The Jews bore the brunt. During World War II, under the iron heel of the Germans, the Jews were the group that suffered the most. Largely because of their financial success, as well as their cohesion—the Jews are very close-knit—and their loyalty to a basically non-Aryan culture. They were very loyal to their own culture, whether it was the church or the preservation of traditional culture, they were very loyal. Hitler certainly could not stand this; he hoped to promote Aryan culture. Therefore, they became the victims of Hitler's fanatical ideal of German good.

Hitler preached the great value of social action over individual action.

Remember this well. He proclaimed that the great value of social action surpassed individual action. This is something we must remind ourselves of at all times. We make this mistake in many historical periods, placing the greatness of social action above individual action: not speaking of humanity, as if whoever speaks of humanity is taking the capitalist road. We must speak of sociality, of collectivism. This practice of placing collectivism and social behavior above individual behavior must be guarded against; it is wrong.

He turned children into informers against their own parents. I mentioned this earlier; it is not unique to Germany, nor is it unique to certain countries. As long as it is an extreme fanatical group, such things exist in these organizations. Their actions were nationwide, just as a smaller fanatical leader does within a smaller scope. What Hitler did was the same as what a fanatical leader in a small cult does, except he magnified it to the whole of Germany.

Jews as Martyrs

The Jews are a people who believe in martyrdom.

Look at the Old Testament, especially the Book of Exodus in Judaism. When Moses led the people out of Egypt¹⁷, they appeared precisely in the role of martyrs. At this point, Germany became the new Egypt. He is still talking about that historical event: in history, Egypt had once slaughtered Jews on a massive scale, and Moses led them out of Egypt, fleeing to what is today Jerusalem¹⁸. The Jewish people were persecuted.

He says the Jews were persecuted, but he does not want to oversimplify anything. Without a doubt, he absolutely does not rationalize the atrocities the Jews suffered in Germany. He says he is not trying to say that the atrocities the Jews suffered in Germany had any justification. But:

You do indeed each create your own reality, and collectively you create the realities of your nations and your countries.

Therefore at that time, during World War II, the Germans saw themselves as victors, while the Jews saw themselves as victims, as martyrs. There was a collective belief involved here.

Now, generally speaking, both responded as groups rather than as individuals. Of course each person has their own life, each person has their own fate, each person has their own choices -- that is true. But against the historical backdrop of World War II, both the Germans and the Jews were responding predominantly in a group manner, in a group-consciousness manner.

They were all idealists. The Jews and Hitler's Germans were both idealists, but fundamentally both held a pessimistic view of themselves. Each had a pessimistic side toward themselves.

Hitler's pessimism was the belief that the human heart is inherently evil. To prevent the evil in the human heart from causing society or humanity to ultimately collapse, he felt he should make the Aryan race -- this superior, upright race -- the core, so that the evil people he feared would not become the dominant element of society. So his view that human nature is fundamentally evil was his pessimism.

What was the Jews' pessimism? The Jewish conception was also a dark one. Their own rules and laws were established to protect the purity of the soul against the forces of evil. They felt they had to establish their own rules and laws in order to maintain the purity of their souls; otherwise they would be defiled. So they had to unite to resist the forces of evil.

Although in the Jewish Old Testament, Jehovah occasionally appeared in great and solemn majesty to deliver his chosen people, he made them endure extraordinary humiliation for long periods, as if he only came to save them at the very last moment. This is very much like American blockbuster films, where the time bomb can only be defused in the final countdown -- nineteen, eighteen, seventeen -- never a moment earlier, always at the very last second. When this God delivered his people, especially the Jewish people, it seemed to be the same way: he saved them only at the last moment. He is referring to the previous time, the time in Egypt. But this time, in the mass slaughter of the Jewish people advocated by Hitler, it seems God did not save them at all. What was going on here?

You see, Seth rarely discusses contemporary history and these kinds of matters, so everyone should treasure Seth's exploration of this issue. Through the analysis of these events, you will gain a deeper and more far-reaching understanding of wars, religions, and cultural conflicts in human history. We may encounter these things in future history as well. You will have a completely new perspective, unlike people who have not studied the Seth material and are misled by surface appearances.

Hitler's Warning to the Whole World

Seth goes on to say:

Setting aside Hitler himself, and setting aside those who followed him, Hitler brought a very important concept, and he changed your history.

All the most pathological nationalist dreams that had flourished for a generation, all the most exaggerated glorifications of war, when it acted as a nation seeking the inviolable right to dominate, finally came to focus on Hitler's Germany.

This passage may read a little convoluted. What he means is that the Germany where Hitler was, took the darkest, most extreme, most sinister ideas of every nation in humanity and made a real-world demonstration of them. What demonstration? For every country, they have their own nationalist dream, and that dream is not wrong in itself. But if this pursuit becomes pathological, or reaches its worst possible outcome, that is what Hitler's Germany looked like. He sounded an alarm for all the countries of the world, telling us to be vigilant about nationalism, not to let it run rampant and rear its head. If nationalism runs rampant, then countless countries like that Germany will emerge. Do you understand what this means?

When a country becomes fanatical, advocating the supremacy of its own nationalism, then that is the next Germany. Hitler gave everyone the worst possible demonstration, including the exaggeration of war, the glorification of war, and so on. Many people worship war, even to this day. Whenever a problem cannot be solved, they just fight. This kind of rhetoric is extremely dangerous, it is madness. Whether in reality or anywhere else, do not bother reasoning with people who hold this view. If you can stop them, stop them; if you cannot stop them, do not go along with them. That is the most foolish approach, and it will bring disaster to all of humanity.

If the most fanatical nationalism were allowed to develop unchecked, if the concept of justice were linked with power, if any country could rationalize the annihilation of other countries.

This is what I meant just now. Hitler served as a very good negative example. If we regard any nationalism -- every country has its own different nationalism -- as reasonable and worthy of support, and take that as the starting point for establishing one's own justice, because for him, upholding their country's nationalism is absolutely just, and the whole nation would agree. Then link power together with it, with the goal of annihilating other countries, then what would this world become? You can imagine it.

So when we study the Seth material, we should not only learn his angle and perspective on analyzing problems, but also learn to apply and adapt it in reality, to use it in our own country, our own region, and from our own standpoint re-examine your definition and understanding of the nation, your view of nationalism, and think about this issue again calmly.

Here you must understand that Hitler believed that under his view of what he considered the greater good, any atrocity could be rationalized. To that extent, he held and promoted many ideals that were already widely accepted by the nations of the world, although they had not been put into practice in such a rapid manner, but the nations of the world saw their own worst tendencies personified there in Hitler's Germany, ready to attack themselves.

Let me explain this again. What Hitler did was actually what every country wanted to do. Do not deny it, every country wants to do it. Ask South Korea: if they had the chance to unify the whole world and leave only South Korea, would they be willing? Would the Japanese be willing? Yes, Japan did it, it is not as if they never did. The Yamato people are the most superior people, right? But we Chinese feel that the Yamato people are all descendants of the Chinese, and the ancestors are right here and have not even spoken yet. The Chinese see themselves as the leader of all Asia, or in a dominant position, especially as their economic status and their voice on the world stage have grown larger and larger recently, they have this dream of being a great power. I will not go into detail. Simply put, every country has its own ideas, and every country has the same tendency as the Germany where Hitler was. It is not that they actually went and did it, but inwardly they have this tendency, wanting to push their own nationalism or statism to the extreme. And Hitler was a man of action, he did it quickly. The things they wanted to do, did not dare to do, or had not had time to do, Hitler did them all, thoroughly and without leaving any blind spots, even more thoroughly than they had imagined.

The irony is that after Hitler did all these little dark corners of their hearts, the things they wanted to do but did not do, these countries suddenly found themselves becoming victims. Is that not ironic? If any country in this world were to follow its own inner nationalist or statist tendency and develop unchecked, the ones who would suffer would be all the other countries of the world. Because Hitler already gave them a very good demonstration. You see how unique and incisive Seth's angle on problems is, absolutely different from us ordinary people. Ordinary historians, sociologists, anthropologists really do not have this kind of height to look at such problems. This truly is a far-sighted view that cannot be recognized from a merely human standpoint. It is a warning suited to all of humanity.

There Are No True Victors in a World War

For certain reasons, for various reasons, the Jews once again -- and this is not the whole story -- played the role of all the victims of the world.

The Jews stepped forward and said, let me be the martyr. None of you want to do it, so I will. It is not as if I have never done it before -- I will be the martyr a second time. For my own people, for my own ideals, and to awaken the people of the whole world, I will be this martyr. So you see, how terribly the Jews died in the Nazi concentration camps during World War II. Even now there are many memorials, including the Nazi concentration camp memorial sites still standing in Germany. He became the victim, letting everyone see with absolute clarity to what degree such atrocities can destroy and extinguish humanity.

The Germans and the Jews both basically agreed that human nature is inherently evil. Both of them, in essence, believed that human nature is inherently evil.

The modern world awakened for the first time to the fact that it could be affected by political events, and that technology and mass communication accelerated the dangers of all wars.

The modern world saw clearly and awakened for the first time: a political event can affect not only one's own country, but the entire globe. This was humanity's first awakening on this issue. Previously we thought that a country's politics could at most affect that country itself, and others stood by and watched -- which is why there was the principle at that time of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. The basic principle between nations was non-interference in each other's internal affairs. What happens in your country behind closed doors is your own business; we do not get involved. That was the old view. Not anymore. Later the United Nations Security Council¹⁹ was established precisely to deal with matters between nations, precisely so that someone would manage these things, precisely so that there would be a world police. You cannot say that just because you beat your own wife behind closed doors, no one else may say a word. Beating your own wife is not acceptable either, and oppressing your own people is not acceptable either.

This is like a joke I told earlier. During the Qing dynasty, a British envoy came to the Qing court²⁰. After learning that the eunuchs who served the emperor and his consorts had all been castrated, he spoke up on behalf of these eunuchs and made an impassioned speech before the emperor in the court, saying this was a practice that extinguished humanity and should be abolished. Before the emperor could even speak, a eunuch beside him stepped up and gave the foreign envoy a big slap across the face, saying, what do you know? We serve His Majesty and the women around him willingly. This is our blessing, a blessing cultivated over many lifetimes. Who are you to speak? Two big slaps left the foreign envoy stunned. I was speaking up for you, and you hit me. This is like the whole world sounding an alarm.

Hitler brought many of humanity's most heinous tendencies to the surface. He brought out the worst in people to the surface, and everyone saw it. Humanity understood for the first time:

Power alone does not represent justice.

People did not think that way before. They believed that whoever had power had the final say, that whoever had the bigger fist had the final say. This is somewhat like the state of the red organization described in the article on reshaping organizations -- whoever is strongest has the final say. But the Hitler affair made everyone realize that it is not the case that when a country becomes so powerful that no one can stand against it, it can then represent justice. No matter how powerful he was, even if he had ruled all of Europe -- at that time, apart from Britain, which was separated by a channel and had not been occupied, and apart from the Soviet Union, which was far to the east of Europe, all the other European countries, except for allied Italy, neutral Switzerland, and a few other neutral countries, had been occupied by Hitler. Did he not ultimately go on to try to destroy the Soviet Union as well? His power at that time was absolutely beyond question. But can power represent justice? You say no. Now you all know it cannot, but at that time it really did. Why? Think carefully: throughout China's dynasties, as long as you could overthrow the old government, overthrow the old dynasty, as long as you sat on the emperor's throne, you were justice. Including what Chairman Mao said: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." What does "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" mean? Never mind whether it is just, never mind whether it is legal -- as long as I defeat you, as long as I win, I am the legitimate government. So the crux of the matter lies right here.

The Hitler affair made everyone truly and soberly realize that even if Hitler could have unified and occupied all of Europe, he still could not represent justice. This was the first time humanity recognized this issue. It was not so before. Previously, whether in Europe, Asia, or any country in the world, it was power politics -- whoever won the war owned the territory. So Hitler thought this old trick would still work. Why did he launch blitzkriegs and rapid attacks to quickly occupy Europe? He was still using the old theory: whoever has the most power represents justice. As long as I rule you and occupy you, I am the just side. But what he did not expect was that while he was doing this, the world's understanding underwent a fundamental reversal. People discovered that power cannot represent justice. Remember this sentence -- it is a very important one.

And in broader terms:

A world war has no true victors.

Be sure to put a period at the end of this sentence. Is human society now increasingly reaching this consensus? People in every country share this consensus: a world war has no true victors. This is absolutely true. So Hitler sounded an alarm for humanity. In such a notoriously infamous way, he nevertheless played a role in humanity's development. Of course his crimes cannot be erased, but think about the alarm he sounded for humanity -- from the end of World War II in 1945 to today, it has been a full 76 years²¹. Humanity has not erupted into any global war. You may say, what is so remarkable about that? But do not forget that in the brief span from the 1910s to the 1930s, two world wars had already broken out²². Although there are still some regional wars in the world, no country is willing, daring, or inclined to provoke a world-class war. A third world war will not happen, because all of humanity shares a basic consensus: in such a war, no matter who wins, it is not a victory, because for the whole world, there is no true victor. When a war has no true victor, who would be willing to start such a war? When you and I and everyone reading these books today hold this understanding; when other people in society hold this understanding through other channels; when we all believe that a world war has no true victors, then a world war will not happen, because there is no motive for it to happen. Why would you do something with no victor? Would you still shed your blood and sacrifice your life for it?

Hitler and the Atomic Bomb

Hitler may well be said to have set off the world's first atomic bomb.

From this angle, it seems Hitler set off the first atomic bomb, not the Americans. Seth's perspective is always so surprising.

But in a strange way, Hitler knew from the very beginning that he was doomed to fail.

Interesting, isn't it? Very interesting. No matter how loudly he boasted, deep down he knew he was doomed to fail. As far as Hitler's expectations for Germany were concerned, Germany was also doomed to fail. Hitler knew this all along.

He craved destruction because, even in his saner moments, he recognized that his earlier ideals were badly distorted.

When he was lucid, he knew his ideals were a massive distortion, a devastation of all human nature, a trampling of human civilization, and could never possibly succeed. What this means is that Hitler was often not lucid. This also means he often sabotaged himself. Since he had this deep subconscious within him, always feeling he could not succeed, he would sabotage himself. Just like with the Allies, several important victories were the result of this self-sabotage. We won't go into detail; today is not an analysis of World War II history. But if you study the history of World War II carefully, you will find that at many subtle moments in that war, Hitler made the most foolish moves and played the worst possible chess. A normal person would never make such mistakes; at those times he seemed to have lost his head, all foolish moves, causing him to suffer repeated defeats in several key battles and turning the tide of the war.

In the same way that he did not want victory, Germany, for the same reasons, did not develop the atomic bomb. Of course, if you think about it, if it had not been America that first developed the atomic bomb, but the Germans who first developed it, and made ten or twenty of them, tossing one here and one there, then it would not have been Germany and Japan who surrendered, but the Allies. Have you ever imagined that? What would the effect have been if Hitler had dropped an atomic bomb on New York? Dropped one on several major American cities, dropped one on Britain, dropped a few on the Soviet Union, dropped a few on Chinese territory -- how could that war have been fought? So history always has its mysterious aspects. Germany was clearly the first to research the atomic bomb, clearly had the most advanced technology, and even America's atomic bomb was developed by German scientists who had gone to America²³. Logically, Germany had the greatest advantage and should have developed it first, yet it did not. By some strange twist of fate, it did not develop the atomic bomb, and America developed it first instead.

Then speaking of the atomic bomb, we come to Hiroshima. You see, since Seth got to this point, he would not leave it out.

There, a very destructive bomb was set off.

This was the first time in human history that an atomic bomb was detonated over human heads. And for what reason? Why drop the atomic bomb? The reason was to save lives, to save American lives. Because at that time World War II was in a stalemate, and when the decision to drop the atomic bomb was made, they believed that if they did not drop it, America would lose several hundred thousand to over a million more soldiers²⁴. Because by then Japan had gone so crazy that it was using all kinds of suicide squads and every possible method; it was no longer war, it was total war. If you watch films about World War II from that period, Japan had already taken twelve- and thirteen-year-old, thirteen- and fourteen-year-old children out for training, and even adopted suicide attacks. This all started with Japan. It was no longer a war; they were fighting to the death, staking the lives of the entire nation. So America thought at the time, rather than continue fighting, if America would lose several hundred thousand or even a million more people, wouldn't Japan also lose several hundred thousand or a million more? So rather than that, better to drop a few atomic bombs. Although tens of thousands might die, compared to millions dying, it was still fewer. That was their thinking.

When they dropped the atomic bombs, it was also a deterrent to Japan. The intention of saving American lives was, to Americans, a good deed. The ones sacrificed this time were the Japanese.

From that perspective, America's good was not Japan's good. But this Seth viewpoint is not entirely correct. When studying the Seth material, don't treat Seth as an imperial edict, as if every word he says is right. This statement of his is meant to emphasize his point that standards of good and evil are not consistent, and that point is correct. But the example he uses here is not entirely appropriate. America's good was for Americans, to reduce American soldier deaths; but at the same time, from another angle, wasn't it also reducing Japanese deaths? You can imagine, if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, and American troops had landed directly in Japan, carrying out a carpet offensive, with Japan using that kind of desperate resistance, suicide attacks, street fighting, suicide bombs, and all kinds of attacks, you can imagine how horrific the death toll would have been. So here it was not only for America's good; they also considered this. But what Seth says here is not wrong: their ultimate starting point did indeed include such a starting point, which was to reduce American soldier casualties. Because they did not care about Japanese casualties. To be honest, when the fighting had reached that fever pitch, would you still care about the enemy's deaths? That would be a joke. What I just said is that from a more macro perspective, it actually avoided casualties on both sides.

What Price the Pursuit of Good

And:

An action meant to save lives, meant to save the lives of certain Americans, was designed to take away the lives of other people.

So this is not good.

What is the price of achieving good?

He asks this soul-searching question again. You humans talk every day about pursuing good, so what price are you willing to pay for pursuing good? And whose concept of good is the standard? This brings us back again to the question at the beginning of this chapter.

Now to a certain extent:

Man's pursuit of good gave birth to the Spanish Inquisition²⁵, and the Salem witch hunts²⁶.

These are two tragic events in history, one the Inquisition, the other the witch hunts, where they caught them and killed them, caught them and burned them. Later many movies were made about this.

Politically:

Today many people believe that the Russians are the enemy, and therefore any means may be used to destroy that country.

He is talking about 1970, when the Cold War was at its hottest²⁷. America considered the Soviet Union the enemy. To destroy the Soviet Union, any means were justified. Because they are our enemy. Within the United States, some people fanatically believed that the system was rotten to the core. Apart from the fanaticism toward the Soviet Union, some people believed that the American system was rotten to the root, that this system could not be kept, that it had to be overthrown; and any means to destroy it were justified. As long as the existing American state system could be destroyed, anything was justified. See, you didn't expect this, but there were many people willing to destroy the American system, they thought it was too corrupt. Isn't today's America the same? Many people feel that the current American system no longer works, that it must be overthrown and replaced with a new one, because all its flaws have been exposed.

Some people believed that male homosexuals and lesbians were evil—this is 1970, don't forget. That era is not the present. Now homosexuality is legal throughout the United States, people can even marry directly, there is no discrimination, no one dares discriminate against homosexuals. But in that era:

Believing that they lacked the true qualities of humanity, and therefore need not be treated with normal respect.

For a period of time, homosexuals were treated with extreme disrespect and all kinds of insults. All of this involves your value judgments about the concept of good. When you do these things, aren't you all basing them on value judgments about good? You all place yourselves on the moral high ground, believing that you stand upon the fortress of good, and that you may take any effective means you deem necessary against others, because you think you are doing good, you are carrying out heaven's will.

Few people begin by trying to be as bad as possible.

No one is bad from the start. At least some criminals, when stealing, feel that they are merely correcting a distributive error in society. Rob the rich to feed the poor—many people who steal really do think this way in their hearts, it is called righteous thievery. Many people specifically steal from the rich, and they steal with a clear conscience, feeling that they are redistributing on behalf of society. I am not saying that those people are the only ones, not saying that all these people are acting to uphold social justice or expose social injustice. No, just that some people are like this. But in any case, they all use their own views of good or justice to see themselves, and thereby rationalize their activities. There are many of these. Those in China who took to the mountains and became bandits—which one of them did not raise the banner of justice, carrying out heaven's will, protesting social injustice, righting wrongs? Since society is unjust and no one is managing it, then we will come out and manage it. That is their thinking. But what they actually did was indeed what bandits do, yet they believed they only robbed the rich, and those people deserved to be robbed. In their eyes, the rich were the bad people. After robbing the money, they felt they were proletarians, poor people, and dividing the money was only natural and right. The surplus money they would distribute to the surrounding villages. Some of those who took to the mountains were even welcomed by the common people, because they shared what they had stolen with the local villagers. Interesting.

Fanaticism Is Grandiose Idealism

You must understand that fanaticism is always dealing with grandiose ideals.

Remember, fanaticism is necessarily grandiose. They are not down-to-earth doers; what they pursue is grandiosity. So look at the difference between a fanatic and an idealist: the idealist is down-to-earth, seeking real, tangible, gradual change; the fanatic cannot wait, does not like that, and prefers fast, effective, spectacular methods -- that is, the grandiose. Is this unfamiliar to us? Not at all unfamiliar.

And at the same time:

They believe, however, in man's sinful nature, and in the individual's lack of power.

They are grandiose, yet they also believe that human nature is fundamentally sinful -- this is very dangerous. They believe that human nature is fundamentally sinful, and that human beings have no sense of power. Interesting, right? Because human beings are sinful, they therefore have no sense of power.

They cannot trust their own expression because they are convinced it is devious.

They feel that human nature is inherently evil, including themselves -- they also feel they are devious. So they do not believe in themselves. And if they do not believe in themselves, who do they believe in? They believe in the organization, in the group. Thus their ideals seem even more distant. Because if he cannot even believe in himself, then what? Because at the bottom, fanatics are all idealists -- they all have idealism as their foundation. It is only in action, in doing whatever it takes to reach the goal, that they become fanatics. But at this point he discovers the greatest irony: if he believes that human nature is inherently evil, then his idealism can never be realized. So fanatics also call on others to engage in social activities, to get everyone to do collective activities. This is what fanatics often do. Do not act for the individual; always act for the collective. Why? Because since they never believe that individual action is effective, their group is not a reasonable gathering of individuals, a convergence that pools individual resources. On the contrary, they are afraid to affirm their individuality, and they hope to find it within the group, hoping to establish a common individuality. That is impossible.

What he means in this passage is that these fanatics believe both that human nature is evil and that human beings have no sense of power. Under the combined effect of these two beliefs, they do not believe that any individual's expression will produce good results. So they neither allow their own expression nor allow the individualized expression of others. They believe only in collective declarations and collective purposes. Out of fear that individual selfishness and the evil of individuality will gain the upper hand, they wipe out all individuality -- their own and everyone else's -- leaving only a collective idea, a collective belief, a collective goal. They do not believe in the individual; they believe in the collective. Interesting, right? This is the characteristic of fanatics. Think back carefully -- are fanatics like this? Exactly like this. They hope to establish a common humanity. They do not believe in each individual's humanity; they believe there is a common humanity. Is this not absurd? If you do not believe in each person's humanity, how could a common humanity possibly turn out well? Seth says that is impossible. You do not even believe in each person's humanity, yet you hope to build a common humanity on top of that -- and this humanity will be good? Do they themselves believe this? They dare not question it to the root, because if you try to get to the root, they will criticize you. So they fool themselves, and they have a great time playing the game.

The true individual can do much through social action, and mankind is social. Those who fear their individuality can never find it in a group, however, but only a caricature of their own powerlessness.

Seth always says these things in a roundabout way. What he means is that human beings are necessarily social -- we all acknowledge this. But those who fear their individuality, who dare not love themselves, who dare not accept themselves, who dare not acknowledge their individuality, who think there is much darkness and evil within it -- these people want to find sociality in a group, but they will never find it. Yet human beings are a social species and cannot survive apart from society. Is this not a great paradox? They can neither find a correct state of being social, nor can they separate from society. They believe neither in others nor in themselves, nor do they believe that this sociality truly exists. They think it is all nonsense, and that only common collective restraint can work. If individual development is allowed free rein, it will bring catastrophic consequences. So they want to seek sociality, but in the group, in the organization, they do not find sociality; instead they find a satirical caricature depicting their own powerlessness. Seth is being quite satirical too -- he portrays these people very vividly.

Then this dictation comes to an end. He says next:

I have not forgotten the scientist's letter, and we will insert it into this book.

This session has almost no difficulty, but its importance is very great. In the Seth sessions, many sessions are deeply difficult, but many sessions have no difficulty, yet their importance is even greater than the difficult ones. This session is like that. It truly reveals to us what evil consequences can come from humanity's simple pursuit of so-called goodness. This is a very ironic topic, and one worthy of all humanity's vigilance.

Starting from the Phenomenon of Patriarchal Society

This session began at 9:46 p.m. on Monday, May 14, 1979, and is Session 853 of the book. Although Jane and I both filed it outside the routine material -- this was originally a private session, mainly dealing with matters concerning Jane and Rob -- we still included it in this book. Because Seth provided many general insights about individual and mass reality, as well as specific insights into our personal reality. In fact, without the traits Seth discussed about us tonight, I doubt whether these Seth books, or even these sessions themselves, would exist at all. So in that sense, this session contains many of the insights we have been seeking about "how the Seth material came to be, and why it came to be." This session is very interesting and also very important.

Seth began speaking directly, saying that the content about the book should be covered on Wednesday, so this Monday session was only meant to be an "extremely brief comment," not the formal content of the book. But as we can see, these comments are all very profound.

Session 853

Generally speaking, in your society, creativity has feminine connotations, while at the same time, power has masculine connotations, and is largely considered destructive.

Everyone must remember, this is generally speaking, not absolute -- generally speaking, in your society, creativity has feminine connotations, while power has masculine connotations. This is the general perception in our society.

Generally speaking, your scientists are intellectually oriented, believing reason to be superior to intuition, and they take those qualities for granted as opposites.

Scientists are intellectually oriented, oriented toward intellect, reason, and logic, believing reason to be superior to intuition. They think intuition is unimportant, and that reason, logic, reasoning, and intellect are what matter most, so they take those intuitive qualities for granted as opposites. They cannot imagine the original creative source of life -- because in their terms, that would remind them that creation is the foundation of the rational feminine. The source of the world was "created," and if they were to emphasize the creative nature of the world's source, that would be to emphasize the importance of the feminine in creativity, which they are unwilling to do. Because the feminine represents intuition, represents creativity, and they believe in reason.

So they would rather believe that this world was created according to some big bang theory, or Darwin's explanation²⁸, rather than believe that our world was created the way a work of art is created. He ignores the fact that the creation of this world itself did not follow those so-called rational laws -- it was born from a mad, or fanatical, or ecstatic creation. The birth of this world is the same as the creative feeling you have when an artist paints a picture, writes a poem, or writes a song -- it all comes from nothing into being. If you can understand what it means for something to come from nothing into being, then you can understand how this world came to be. But male-dominated scientists do not want to admit this.

Only within such a framework of discussion do we have a masculine cosmology or a masculine universe.

In our present world, we often say this is a patriarchal society, but Seth puts it even more absolutely -- this is a masculine universe. Why? Because within the framework of human cognition -- within this framework of discussion -- we believe that this world is composed of reason.

It is a history endowed with masculine characteristics, those masculine characteristics that appear in the masculine universe of your male-oriented history.

Originally this universe had both masculine and feminine, but you have taken only the male-oriented side, only the side of masculine characteristics, so this universe, this world, gives people the feeling of being a masculine universe.

This universe appears meaningless -- because the masculine intellect alone cannot perceive its meaning. Since it must not take anything for granted.

The reason this universe appears meaningless is because of male-dominated intellectual cognition. When we analyze according to reason and logic, this world really is meaningless. The key is this sentence: this intellect must -- has to -- not take anything for granted. How should we understand this sentence? According to intellectual understanding, the existence of anything has its cause, has its underlying laws. Scientific or rational analysis always seeks causes, seeks laws, asks why. But he has never considered that this world does not have the question of "why" -- there is no need to ask why. The moment you want to ask why, you are already thinking with logic and reason.

I do not know if you can understand what I mean: all existence in this world is taken for granted. All things, everything you see, all phenomena, all history, all events -- they are all taken for granted. When you take them for granted and no longer pursue the causes, backgrounds, and laws behind them, only when you look at things this way can you understand the meaning of the universe itself. If you insist on using human logic to understand it, then this universe really cannot be found to have any meaning.

Even if certain characteristics of the universe are extremely obvious, they will necessarily be ignored.

Because from the perspective of reason and intellect, it will necessarily ignore them -- because it does not look at things from intuition. Seth says, he knows we must understand that the so-called masculine and feminine are used in the commonly understood sense, and have nothing to do with the basic characteristics of the two sexes. They are spoken of only from the angle of creativity and power.

In those terms, the male-oriented intellect wants to organize this universe -- he wants to organize it, to classify the universe: the universe is divided into the material, the immaterial, energy, laws; forces are also divided into various forces -- the strong force, the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and so on. He always wants to use his own methods to analyze and organize this universe, always wants to name each part, to give the universe names: this is called energy, that is called consciousness, this is called personality, that is called an apple, that is called metal. This is the meaning of the opening line of the Tao Te Ching, "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; the name that can be named is not the eternal name"²⁹ -- the real thing cannot be named, and the moment you name it, you are already wrong. But people cannot change this habit; they must name things, always wanting to organize this universe.

However, the intellect wants to ignore the creative aspects of the universe that are everywhere apparent, and first of all he must believe that he must separate himself from any emotional evidence.

Reason believes that the creativity everywhere apparent in the universe exists, but reason refuses to acknowledge it. The way it refuses to acknowledge it is to remove emotion from the universe and then analyze it. Reason believes that emotion is unreliable, uncertain, and uncontrollable, and that putting it into the study of the universe will inevitably bring chaos. But if you remove emotion and then look at this universe, it is inevitably meaningless -- can you understand what I mean? Once you have extracted emotion from the universe, and then consider the movements and laws between these objects -- why the sun revolves around the earth, and so on -- all of it loses its meaning.

Thus, in your history, you have a masculine god of power and vengeance -- who, for example, would slay half of the Egyptians and the Jews to avenge the earlier cruelty of the Egyptians.

In our history, our God is masculine, powerful, but vengeful, petty, and one who bears grudges -- if you do not believe in him, he will send you to hell. And he has prejudices. If you look carefully at some religions, they portray God as being just like a person, with very narrow prejudices -- with organizations, with factions, with cognition, and as long as there is such perception, there are prejudices. The God in our religions is a god of power, not a god of creativity. Remember this: the masculine god is a god of power, but not a god of creativity.

Yet creativity has always been humanity's closest connection with his own source, and with the essence of his own existence.

This is stated very clearly: creativity has always been humanity and his own source. You might say this is interesting -- does not humanity represent himself? And then he adds "his own." This "own" refers to creativity itself -- creativity is the source of humanity, and creativity is also the source of creativity itself. Why say this? Because the essence of existence -- the most fundamental thing in this world is existence -- so what is the closest connection with this essence of existence? It is creativity. Creativity is a fundamental attribute of the source of the world, so creativity is also the source of creativity itself -- the source is the origin of the world, and even creativity is derived from the source, so creativity itself is also a product of creativity. This way of putting it is a bit convoluted; I hope you can understand.

Through creativity, humanity feels All That Is. However, creativity follows a different set of rules, completely different. It cannot be classified -- how would you classify it? You do not even know what will be created next; even creation itself does not know what it will create, so it cannot be classified.

And he insists upon having emotional evidence.

Creativity insists upon having emotional evidence, which is very interesting. Because creativity itself carries intent, carries purpose, carries motive within it, it must be based on emotion. Just as a painter creating a painting must have full emotion; a person without emotion going to paint, to write, to be a writer -- I think that is impossible. So the core of creativity is that it must have emotion, and the same is true of this world and the universe. This is different from what many people understand -- many religions remove emotion, feeling that emotions are unreliable, but once emotion is removed, one no longer knows how the universe operates. Moreover, emotion itself is also the source of our motivation for action, the source of energy; without emotion, energy cannot come through.

The Conflict Between Creativity and Intellect

Creativity is a source of revelation and inspiration -- and in the initial revelation and inspiration, it is not about dealing with power, but about dealing with knowing.

The earliest revelation and inspiration are not related to power, but are related to knowing.

In your society, when men and women have creative tendencies, and also happen to have good minds, what usually happens then?

When creative tendencies are paired with very good wisdom and intellect, when intellect and creativity come together, what happens?

The Catholic Church taught that revelation was dangerous, that the obedience of the intellect and the psyche was a much safer path -- and even the saints were slightly under suspicion.

What is revelation? You can think of revelation as inspiration, as intuition. The Catholic Church taught people not to trust revelatory things, and that obedience of the intellect and the psyche was a much safer path. Why were even the saints subject to suspicion? Because saints often had their own insights and understandings that did not follow the traditional rituals of the church, so when they had their own insights and revelations, they too were suspected.

In the Catholic Church, women were inferior, especially in religion and philosophy, because there, their creativity might cause division.

Why did they think women were inferior in religion and philosophy? Because in these two areas, once women's creativity was given free rein, it would create division within traditional religious and philosophical views. Her creativity was unrestrained, and that intuition and understanding would deal a massive blow to the male-dominated religious and philosophical theoretical systems. They wanted to maintain a fixed, unchanging state, but they could not maintain it, so they excluded women. For a very long period, women had no standing in the church.

Women were hysterical, strangers to the world of intellectual thought, swayed instead by incomprehensible female emotions. The best way to deal with women was to diminish their experience through childbearing.

Seth gets right to the crux of the matter: human society discovered that the best way to keep women's experience from being used in creativity, from having an impact on our existing religion and philosophy, was to make them have children -- once they had children they had to take care of them, and taking care of them scattered their attention. From this angle, Seth's way of looking at the problem is extremely sharp.

Ruburt was creative, and therefore, according to the beliefs of his time, he believed he had to guard his creativity very carefully -- so he made up his mind not to have children.

Ruburt decided very early on not to have children, so the two of them had no children. Ruburt had long since discovered in his subconscious that childbearing would indeed affect his creativity, so he would rather not have any.

But more than that, he also decided to overcome any signs of femininity that might taint his work, or disrupt his concentration on his work.

Not only did he not want children, he also stripped away anything with feminine tendencies -- wearing colorful clothes, nice clothes, wearing bow ties, decorations, makeup, beauty treatments, and so on. He removed everything associated with femininity, because he felt it would affect his work and affect his creativity.

Ruburt loved you very deeply before -- and still does.

This is addressed to Rob. Actually, from these words we can hear that the way Ruburt loves Rob now is already different from the very beginning -- at first she loved Rob from a feminine perspective, from the perspective of a wife, and loved him very deeply; but ever since her creativity burst forth, her love is no longer the same as before, no longer from a feminine perspective. Seth, afraid of hurting Rob's feelings, quickly added "and still does" -- but in fact it has already changed.

But in order to satisfy the various needs and beliefs that both of you had to some degree, and to satisfy the needs and beliefs you felt society had, he always felt he had to walk a very thin line.

At this point Seth shifts the topic, no longer exploring the previous issue. His meaning is that Ruburt felt she wanted to give full play to her creativity, but did not want to be too conspicuous -- because in this traditional society it was believed that women should not be too high-profile, so she could only walk a very thin line to maintain balance.

She was always creative -- but she felt that women were inferior.

This is one of Ruburt's beliefs. She turned herself into a state like a man's, but deep down she still felt that women were relatively inferior.

That attitude in itself made him vulnerable -- he might be ridiculed by others, because women would not be regarded as profound thinkers, or innovators on philosophical questions.

He felt that the belief that "women are inferior" in itself had already made him vulnerable. Traditional scientists believed that women could not possibly have very deep thoughts, let alone make innovations on philosophical questions. So Ruburt was very conflicted when transmitting the material.

The trance state itself carries feminine implications. Although he conveniently forgot several excellent male mediums -- and at the same time, he was afraid to exert his power, for fear that others would think he was encroaching on men's prerogatives.

The trance state, the state of dissociation, itself carries feminine implications. Although there are also many men among mediums, Jane really would deliberately choose to forget that there were men among mediums -- deliberately choose to forget those very good male mediums. So she was afraid to give full play to this ability of hers to transmit for Seth, feeling that if she did it too well she would be encroaching on male prerogatives, encroaching on other people's rights in the matter of philosophy and thinkers.

From the perspective of mediumship, from the perspective of transmitting material, up to now, I think if Jane dared to claim second place, no one would dare claim first. Over these 21 years she has transmitted so much material, so steadily and consistently, coherent from beginning to end, with rigorous and meticulous logic. You can imagine other mediums -- in all of human history there has never been a medium who could reach this level, transmitting continuously and with such stability. So on this level, Jane is an extremely excellent medium, yet she did not dare to give full play to it.

You, on the other hand, are creative, but you are a man -- and you partly believe that creativity is a feminine trait.

At this point Seth turns to Rob: Rob is a man, but he always felt that creativity leans toward the feminine.

If, as before, your painting was connected with making money, then painting became a power to make money -- therefore, it was acceptable to your American male identity.

Rob used to paint commercial art at an advertising company, which clearly matched his identity as an American man -- going out to make money gave a sense of power, and making money itself represented a sense of power. So he felt doing that kind of commercial work was perfectly normal.

And I am well aware that, by the standards of your time, both of you are already quite open-minded -- which makes it all the more regrettable.

Seth says both of you are already very open-minded, no longer influenced by worldly concerns, yet the two of you are still so conservative: Jane always felt she was a woman, that she was inferior, that she did not want to be too conspicuous on the matter of transmitting material, and did not dare to encroach on male prerogatives in this area; while Rob, as a man with very strong creativity, went off to do a money-making job, always feeling that painting was too feminine. Seth says it is regrettable -- both of you are already among the more enlightened and open-minded people in humanity, yet you are still so conservative, unable to let go and act freely.

After you left commercial work, you were unwilling to take your works out to sell -- because then, in a manner of speaking, you considered that a kind of prostitution.

After Rob left the advertising company, he was unwilling to sell his paintings. Do you understand? In your heart you felt that was an act of prostitution -- because you felt that the you who produced those paintings was a feminine feeling, you felt that in the creative state of those paintings you were a feminine feeling, and then in order to play the male role of provider and bringer of power, it was sold off. You used feminine abilities to create some paintings, and then sold them to make money. In your heart you felt this was no different from being a prostitute -- others sell their bodies, you sell your art; selling art but not your body, there is no essential difference. Seth, with one sharp remark, "betrayed" Rob, pointed it right out.

The old masters, the artworks of the old art masters of the past, escaped this implication -- largely because they involved so much physical labor, such as making dyes, canvas, and so forth.

Why did the painters of the past not have this feeling? Because in that era, painting was not such a simple matter -- all the dyes had to be made by oneself, dyes of various colors, canvas, frames all had to be made by oneself, clanging and banging away. This physical labor made him feel that taking the painting out to sell had value, because it was not merely feminine creative work, but also had masculine physical labor in it. So the old masters were not affected by this, and did not feel that selling paintings was like selling their bodies.

Many artists today are still like this -- if you look carefully at some artists, if you have artist friends around you, you will find that many artists do not sell their paintings; they paint and keep them. Unless they cannot make a living, they will pick out one or two that they find less pleasing and sell them for money; the best works they keep by their side.

Now, the work of painting supplies now belongs to manufacturers in a male world.

Now those painting supplies no longer need to be produced by oneself; you can just go buy them directly.

Therefore, as a male in your society, the artist is often affected by what he considers the femininity of feminine art -- which, of course, he must face.

In today's human society, male artists will definitely be affected by this -- that is, the feminine quality within art. He must face this problem; there is no way around it. Just as I talked about before in The Magical Approach, you see male artists all grow little ponytails, but at the same time they also grow big beards -- why do they grow big beards? They are afraid that wearing a little ponytail makes them look too much like a woman, so they grow a beard to cover it up. Do normal men wear little ponytails? No. But you see artists mostly wear little ponytails, and mostly have long hair. In the past, if you were an artist and did not have long hair, you would be too embarrassed to go out and meet people. There are also many behaviors that lean toward the feminine; I will not list them all here. For example, artists in many fields -- image design, fashion, entertainment -- many men lean toward the feminine, and in some fields it is even very obvious, as are many homosexuals. Homosexuality is also a form of expression of femininity. Many artists in fashion and creative fields, if they are not homosexual, they feel too embarrassed to greet others, as if that feels more fashionable, or more in keeping with their identity. Of course, the deeper reason is that they have this tendency, and they must face it; each person faces this problem in a different way.

I want to say quite bluntly that this concept is rampant in society, and is at the root of many personal and national problems.

This concept is very widespread and rampant in your society, and is at the root of many personal and national problems. You have not noticed it -- that is, the views mentioned above: that artistry leans feminine, that masculinity leans toward power, and so on -- these are not just personal problems, not just problems of artists, not just problems of Ruburt and Rob; they are problems that all of humanity must face, and are even at the root of national problems. Like the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant debacle mentioned earlier³⁰, and science's concepts of power and creativity, these problems hide beneath many phenomena, invisible to you -- but they are very far-reaching.

You are both highly creative, but privately, and in terms of your roles in the world, you find that your creativity conflicts with your concepts of gender.

Like Ruburt, who clearly has creativity, and it would be perfectly normal for creativity to be feminine, but she also felt that this world is male-dominated -- especially in the realm of thinkers and philosophers; she had never heard of any famous female thinkers, very few, and from ancient times to the present it has been mostly men. So holding such an attitude, Ruburt did not dare to fully give play to her creativity. Rob was the same; as a male painter, he also did not dare to fully express his creativity anywhere.

These mostly involve the unfortunate myths about creative people -- they are not considered to deal with the world in the same way as other people.

Creative people all have such myths, conflicting with their own gender, whether male or female. Other people deal with the world through rationality; they deal with the world through creativity, so they are considered different from others, and they themselves also think this way. Their distinctiveness is exaggerated.

And his creativity itself can lead to suicide and depression.

Because in this twisted state with the world, he cannot fully express his creativity, and this creativity itself wants to manifest, wants to express itself; the inner energy is very strong, yet it is restricted by society's conventional ideas, so this creativity can sometimes lead people to suicide and depression. You see that painters, poets, and artists who commit suicide are very numerous; some people do not commit suicide, but live very decadent and depressed lives. These are all common phenomena among artists and in the art world. No wonder very few creative people can hold out against this unfortunate force -- only a very small number of people can persist, because it is truly difficult to persist under such unfortunate beliefs.

Ruburt's Self-Doubt and the Myth of Gender

This is indeed part of why Ruburt does not trust the spontaneous self -- because he believes he is feminine, and therefore more flawed than a male.

Why can't Ruburt fully trust his own spontaneity? Because she feels it is feminine spontaneity, and she innately believes women are inferior to men, so feminine spontaneity is also inferior to masculine spontaneity. She feels that the ideas and truths expressed through Seth must have flaws. This is a deep belief of hers. So you can see that when she transmits, much of the time she does not carry confidence in it -- like an ordinary transmitter, she tries to avoid the subjective, active elements. She did not transmit much of the sense of power in the Seth material; she spoke more from a peaceful, feminine, gentle angle. Although Seth repeatedly inserted a sense of power into this material, Ruburt softened part of it.

So you have encountered many contradictions. God is assumed to be male, and the soul is sometimes considered female.

This is also why more women than men study spiritual material -- because men have very strong rational thinking constraining them; they are unwilling to accept these spiritual, feeling, intuitive things. They would rather you explain things logically to them; they need to be persuaded through reason. If reason cannot persuade them, just feeling right is useless. Women are not like this: a woman says, I don't care whether your reasoning is correct, and I don't care whether you can persuade me -- none of that matters. As long as what you say can move me, or resonate in my heart, and give me this feeling and intuitive knowing, and make me feel right about it, then I believe you. Whether it holds up logically is another matter, and I don't really care about that. Men are exactly the opposite: you must explain it clearly through reason; if reason is not clear, he will not accept it.

Angels are male.

Many angels are male. In the West, angels are basically all male -- not like what you imagine, angels as winged young girls -- no, angels are generally male.

Now, let us look at the Garden of Eden.

Again the topic shifts. The story of Eden says that Eve tempted Adam, the man, to eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil -- or the tree of knowledge. We just mentioned this issue in the previous session.

This represented a state of consciousness -- only after you ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, the fruit of knowledge, did you have a transformation of consciousness.

Before that, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden had no thinking; they lived carefree lives day after day. To put it bluntly, this was not much different from animals -- just eating and drinking, with no thoughts. From that point on, after eating the fruit of good and evil, humanity began to think about its own thoughts and feelings -- before that, humans never thought about their own problems.

When man approached that state of consciousness -- in which he dared to exercise his own creativity.

Only when he had that state, that state of consciousness, did he dare to exercise his own creativity. Before that he did not dare to exercise it. Why not? Seth says this is very difficult to explain in words. Although Adam and Eve possessed all the attributes of human beings, they had not entered, in consciousness, a state of knowing good and evil, or knowledge, or self-thinking and self-awakening -- when the self is not awakened, his creativity cannot be brought into play. This is very difficult to explain in words.

When man became aware of his own thoughts, and for his own thoughts, became consciously thinking about his own state.

This sentence is extremely convoluted, because it is very difficult to explain in words, yet it still must be said in words. Let us look again at what this sentence means: humanity approached a certain state of consciousness, in which he dared to exercise his rights. What state of consciousness? It is this kind of state -- when man discovers that his thoughts are his own thoughts, he is no longer influenced by anyone, no longer as if there is a higher spirit above, an entity guiding him; he discovers that these are his own thoughts, there is no one above, it is just himself. These thoughts are his own. Only when man feels that his own thoughts are his own does creativity arise. Then, when he feels that his own thoughts are his own, and becomes aware of the state that is thinking about himself -- he becomes aware of a state: he is thinking about himself, this thought is his own, but this own thought is still thinking about his own state. Interesting, isn't it? This is indeed not easy to understand, so we will not expand on it further.

Seth used words as best he could, but words also find it very difficult to fully express his meaning. The state of consciousness he is talking about is the state of self-awareness -- knowing that one is thinking, knowing that this thought is also one's own, knowing the state in which one is thinking. Only when man had this kind of state of consciousness did humanity begin to exercise its own creativity. This point, this state of consciousness, released human creativity -- that is, only after man ate the fruit of good and evil did he release his own creativity.

In your terms, creativity is a feminine intuition -- although, as you know, this intuition belongs to both sexes.

Every person is both male and female. In The Nature of the Psyche, this issue is mainly emphasized -- a person is inherently both male and female. So although creativity is a feminine intuition, everyone has it.

By the time the biblical story of stealing the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and being expelled from the Garden of Eden³¹ was written down, humanity had already evolved into many different states of order.

The era when that biblical story took place was one state; now, hundreds or thousands of years later, humanity has evolved, and is already different from the state of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of good and evil. Why is it different? The biggest difference is that certain powers and organizations were formed -- at the time they ate the fruit of good and evil, there was no power and no organization; this is the biggest difference. Later, human society evolved into one with power and organization.

He wanted to maintain the status quo; he no longer wanted intuitive insight.

Humanity wanted to maintain the status quo -- to maintain certain powers and certain organizations. He did not want to become uncontrollable, so he no longer wanted intuitive insight. Human society now would rather run headlong down this single path within the framework of reason and logic, and does not dare to try intuition, creativity, inspiration -- these things. So it seals these spiritual things tightly shut. The reason is that he wants to maintain the status quo; this must be remembered. This is the current tragedy of human society -- because you have power and organization, if you do not maintain the status quo, won't power be stripped away? Won't the organization be overthrown? For the sake of its own power and the power of the organization, it suppresses creativity.

Creativity should follow some definite path -- therefore, woman became the villain.

Because creativity must have a definite path, and women inherently possess creativity, women were made into the villain. In human history, things have improved recently, but in the past, women's social status was very low.

I have given you that material before. In private sessions, to some extent, Ruburt became afraid of his own creativity -- and so did you. In Ruburt's case, the fear was greater.

Ruburt began to fear his own creativity. Rob is male, just somewhat feminized, so it was a bit easier for him; Ruburt's pressure was greater, and the fear was greater.

Until at times, it seemed that -- if he succeeded at his work, then he was taking some risks.

Ruburt would think that if she achieved great success in her work, she was taking some risks -- in order to achieve this success, she had to bear certain risks. What risks? Ruburt would feel that Rob had been placed in an uncomfortable position. This is one of Ruburt's beliefs -- she believed that in a male-dominated society, if a woman outshines her husband in every way, she would feel uncomfortable; the more successful she became, the more she felt Rob was uncomfortable.

She might become a fanatic -- and show those deplorable, contemptible feminine hysterical traits.

If creativity were not restricted, she felt it would keep expanding to the extreme, and she would become a fanatic, showing those deplorable, contemptible feminine hysterical traits. She did not quite dare to be a completely spontaneous self -- she feared that if the fully spontaneous self were entirely released, it would display feminine hysteria. So this is where she did not trust herself; she kept suppressing it.

Echoes from the Private Session

I hope this session has been beneficial to you both -- this session is ended, and good night.

Then at 10:35, the session was over. What follows is a note written by Rob:

When Rob told Jane "that was an excellent session," Jane said:

I didn't know Seth was going to go deeply into all those things -- maybe that's why I felt so uncomfortable before the session.

Whenever Seth talks about the deep issues between the two of them, Jane feels uncomfortable. That's interesting. Her intuition is very keen.

Part of me knew Seth was going to talk about us, and now I feel completely exhausted. I could go to sleep right away, but I don't want to.

Jane said she couldn't really describe those feelings right now, but when she relayed the part about Rob thinking selling paintings had become a kind of prostitution, she said:

A wonderfully funny emotional feeling -- those were some huge feelings, full of humor.

She laughed, and then said:

You are so strange. You don't want to go to the market to sell paintings, but you want to preserve all these private sessions for posterity.

Jane said to Rob: you don't want to go sell paintings, but you want to record all the private sessions that Seth delivered, apart from the public sessions -- the private sessions dealt with a lot of their private matters, and one day you always wanted to publish the private sessions to the world. Rob himself is a very tight-lipped person who wouldn't go around talking about their personal affairs, but you would publish all the private sessions for the sake of publishing the Seth material, because they revealed too many private things. This was Jane speaking in 1979, and she was absolutely right -- in the nineties, Rob actually did publish all seven volumes of their private sessions, which contained a great deal of their personal and other individual information.

On the other hand, I see us, when I'm eighty and you're ninety, in our backyard, burning all these private sessions.

Jane said she didn't want him to publish them publicly, so she didn't agree to the publication of the private sessions. So the publication of the private sessions only happened many years after Jane's death.

Tonight's session, whether private or not, as part of the Seth material as a whole, can help people see more clearly, adding depth of understanding and background information.

Incidentally, Rob wrote in his own note that although he didn't feel good about the market, over the years he had still sold a few paintings. He sold only a few paintings over several years, averaging one painting a year -- what difference is there between selling and not selling? So if they had to rely on Rob's painting to make money, the family would have starved to death long ago.

Seth Book The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, Session 854

This session began on Wednesday, May 16, 1979, at 9:35 p.m.

Before it began, Rob said that Jane had started a poetry collection today. Jane not only writes novels, she also writes poetry, and this poetry collection is called Heroes. During lunch, she told me that I should keep looking for the heroic self I had written about in The Politics of the Psyche. She was elated by the development of his creative ability, in a state of bliss, Jane was very happy, with a feeling of self-intoxication.

Then Seth came through and continued with the content of this book. The content of this session by Seth is very important, not difficult, but very important.

A Fundamental Analysis of the Fanatic

Basically, a fanatic believes that he himself is powerless.

This is a very key point, different from what many people understand. Basically speaking, a fanatic believes that he himself is powerless, a sense of powerlessness.

Session 854

The fanatic does not trust his own ego structure or his ability to act effectively.

Joint action seems to be the only way, and yet it is a kind of joint action in which each individual must in fact be forced to act, driven by fanaticism, fear, and hatred, provoked and incited, because otherwise these fanatics fear that they would not take any action toward their ideal at all.

The fanatic himself is powerless. He does not believe he has the ability to solve any problem or that his actions have any effect. He insists on gathering a mob of rabble -- perhaps that sounds a bit harsh -- he insists on gathering a group of people to take collective action. He feels he himself has no ability, but acting together, they have ability.

But what kind of joint action is this? Is it action in which each person acts spontaneously? No. It is action driven by being provoked, incited, by fear, by fanaticism. Because he feels that if they were not in such a state, they would not take any action toward their so-called ideal goal.

So this is a fundamental analysis of the fanatic:

Through such methods, and through such mass hysteria, the individual does not have to take responsibility for individual action.

This point is crucial. This kind of collective fanaticism, collective hysteria, can absolve the individual of his responsibility. So when doing any evil deed, he personally feels no guilt, because he feels it is a collective act, and he personally is merely one of its executors. This is a typical characteristic of many fanatical organizations and fanatical factions -- shifting responsibility onto the organization, while the individual commits the evil deeds, yet the individual does not have to bear any responsibility for them. Conversely, the responsibility is placed onto the group, onto a virtual group, and becomes generalized and dispersed.

Whatever their cause -- remember, whatever their cause.

Be sure to remember, whatever his cause, whatever cause he preaches, this cause or that cause, all causes are the same. These causes can shelter any number of crimes. As long as it is attributed to some cause, he will certainly use that cause to shelter countless crimes. If you criticize him, then you can only criticize the cause itself -- for example, we can criticize fascism, Japanese militarism, and so on -- but it seems that the people involved no longer bear responsibility. The cause takes the blame, and all the crimes can be borne by the cause, while no specific individual needs to bear the blame alone.

Fanatics are narrow-minded, so any beliefs that do not suit their purposes are ignored. But those beliefs that challenge their purposes immediately become targets of condemnation and attack.

All fanatics are extremely narrow-minded. They only accept their own set of theories. Anything inconsistent with that theory, they either ignore, pretend not to see; or if that theory or belief challenges their own beliefs, challenges the beliefs of their fanatical organization, they immediately attack and condemn it.

The Masculine View of Power and the Fanaticism of Science and Religion

Generally speaking, in your society, power is considered a masculine attribute.

In the previous session he already said that fanatical leaders are often male, and non-feminine. Generally the leaders of fanatical organizations are male, rarely female -- there are some, it cannot be said there are none, but they are rare -- while women are mostly followers, and the followers are mostly female. Because they have been taught by this society: for them, power is wrong, having power oneself is wrong, while following power, following those who have power, is right. This is an erroneous cognition that many women are born with -- she is clearly capable of doing many things, yet she insists on depending on a man, because she feels that only men have this power, that only men are the decision-makers. She feels she herself should not have ability.

I spoke in Session 846 about your religious and scientific fanatics.

He said you have two kinds of fanatics: one religious, one scientific.

And the male-oriented scientific establishment, in the same way, uses its experience -- just as the male Jehovah -- on a different stage, uses his power in the same way.

Male scientists and the male Jehovah -- that is, the male God -- on the stage of science and the stage of religion, use their power in the same way: both protect their friends and destroy their enemies. Whether religious or scientific, they are the same, because both are male-dominated.

In my previous book, The Nature of the Psyche, I spoke quite thoroughly about the sexuality of your species. But here I would like to mention how some of those sexual beliefs have influenced your behavior.

Those who have studied The Nature of the Psyche know that each of us is bisexual, but our erroneous cognition of and beliefs about gender can lead us to take some wrong approaches in life.

Seth says, very interestingly:

The male scientist regards the rocket as a personal symbol of his sexual power.

Male scientists regard the rocket as a personal symbol of his sexual power, like his phallus. This is an inner thought of male scientists.

He feels he has the prerogative to use his power in any way he chooses.

Many scientists are idealists, true, but they believe that their search for answers justifies almost any means -- even sacrifice, not only of themselves but of others as well.

Scientists say that as long as I am seeking truth and seeking answers, I can afford not to care about sacrificing some people's lives, including his own, which he is also willing to do. Many scientists also forget to eat and sleep, and even risk their lives in their dedication. They feel it is all worth it.

When they ignore the rights of others, and when they desecrate life in a misguided attempt to understand it, they become fanatics.

Scientists want to interpret life, but they go wrong. When they use a wrong method to interpret it, a misguided attempt to interpret life, they become fanatics who harm life or kill life.

War and Equality

When women prove their equality with men by showing that they can join the army and enter combat, they make a great mistake.

Now many militaries recruit female soldiers. Women joining the military seems to prove equality between men and women -- women can also go to the battlefield and fight. In ancient times there was also Mulan.³² Seth says that if women want to go fight on the battlefield, this is a great mistake.

Why is it a great mistake?

War always makes you a lesser species than you could be.

War can always turn you humans into a lesser race or species than you should be. That is to say, humanity would be better off without war, but war can only make the overall quality of humanity worse.

In not taking part in war, women have shown uncommon wisdom.

Women are very smart, so women generally do not join the military or go to war, and they hate war. Women themselves do not participate and do not fight.

But in sending their sons and lovers or husbands to war, they have shown uncommon unwisdom.

What does this mean? She herself does not join the military or fight, but she encourages her loved ones -- sons, husbands, lovers -- to go to the battlefield, calling it being sensible, considering the bigger picture, having patriotic sentiment. On this point Seth says it is extremely unwise.

If you kill for the sake of peace, that only makes you a better killer.

He says it again -- he has emphasized this before. You are still a killer, and nothing can change that fact. The act of killing, no matter what reasons or excuses you have, no matter how lofty the ideal, is wrong.

In any war, the degree of fanaticism on both sides is in direct proportion to their degree of involvement.

The deeper the involvement, the greater the fanaticism. I understand very well that war often seems to be the only practical path available to you. We ordinarily feel there is no other way, only war; war is the only path.

What is the reason?

Because such a set of beliefs is, relatively speaking, a worldwide set of beliefs.

The reason we think war is the only way to solve problems is precisely because of our beliefs -- even a kind of universally accepted worldwide belief.

Unless you change those worldwide beliefs, war will appear to have some practical value, and a very illusory and very erroneous value at that.

If we humans do not change our views and beliefs about war, war will make us feel as though it has some practical value, and those values are very illusory and very erroneous.

Capital Punishment and Mass Fear

Fanatics are always eloquent. They all have a pile of reasons, all especially righteous, all using grand words such as truth, good and evil, and especially retribution. To some degree, capital punishment is a fanatical social act.

Why?

Taking the life of a murderer does not bring back the life of the victim, nor does it prevent others from committing such crimes again.

I understand that capital punishment often appears to be a practical solution. And indeed, these murderers, these killers, themselves also want to die, and it is because of their need to be punished that they are caught.

Very interesting.

Now many people -- I am speaking generally -- are in their present situation because they so thoroughly believe -- they believe what all of you roughly believe.

What is that?

That you are flawed creatures, born of a meaningless universe, or created by a vengeful God, and damaged by original sin.

This is a belief that many people hold. And these criminals act out those beliefs completely -- human nature is flawed, human nature is inadequate, humans have a bad side. And these criminals precisely confirm these people's beliefs: indeed, you see, such bad people do exist.

Their tendencies are those that each of you is afraid you possess.

If you believe that all people have flaws, that everyone is imperfect, then you have such flaws within yourself. The crimes that criminal commits are precisely the flaws that may be hidden in every person, except that the criminal acts them out for you.

Science and religion each tell you that if left alone, you would spontaneously become primitive creatures, filled with uncontrolled desires and evil.

All religions and sciences tell you one result: if you are not governed, not controlled by laws and social systems, you will certainly become a person manipulated by out-of-control desires and evil. Because from childhood you have believed that you have this evil nature within you, that you have this original sin.

Look at the comments under my video "Taking You Into the World of Thought." Some people say: according to what you say, do whatever you want -- then can I go kill people and commit arson? You see, this person instinctively thinks that way. As long as there is no restraint, if you say you can do anything you want, follow your highest joy and desire and yearning, he immediately thinks of murder and arson. So this problem is not limited to certain people; the entire human society has a universal concept -- they do not believe in themselves, do not believe they are perfect, do not believe that under spontaneous and automatic conditions they would do anything good. This is a mindset that most people have.

Freud and Jehovah -- you see, the psychologist and God, one representing science, one representing religion -- both gave you that message.

Freud said that beneath the human subconscious everything is terrifying, all those sinful, desirous, primitive drives. God also told you that humans have original sin.

And then poor Darwin, wanting to find his answer, ended up failing miserably.

Darwin wanted to find out where humans came from, whether humans really have such evil things, and he did not find it either; he failed miserably.

Democracy and Individual Responsibility

Fanatics cannot tolerate tolerance. They expect obedience. They are willing to obey.

They cannot tolerate; they expect obedience.

A democratic society provides the greatest challenge and the greatest possibility of achievement for the individual and for the species, because it allows the free exchange of concepts. But it demands far more of its people, because by and large each individual must choose, from a variety of lifestyles and beliefs, his or her own stage for daily life and action.

Fanatics like obedience, while democratic societies and democratic nations provide humanity with the greatest challenge and the greatest possibility of achievement. Because they do not demand obedience; they demand the development of each person's individual growth and individual achievement. And compared to dictatorial countries or some non-democratic countries, this actually places higher demands on the people, because it requires people to choose, from a variety of beliefs and concepts, the stage of action that guides their daily lives or that they choose for their lives. They have to choose for themselves. Unlike dictatorial countries or those more rigid countries, where everything is prescribed for you, and you do not need to choose, and you have no choice -- you can only have one belief system, only one ideological system, and what is right and what is wrong is arranged for you.

In some periods, for some people, it undoubtedly seems as if all standards have disappeared.

In some democratic countries, in some periods, it seems as if there are no standards at all, and anything goes. Therefore, they long for the old authority -- because when this kind of freedom, this free exercise of will, is allowed to run loose, they are at a loss.

And there are always fanatics there to represent the ultimate truth.

There is always someone who jumps out and proclaims that he has grasped the ultimate truth. These are all fanatics.

And to remove from the individual's shoulders the burden of the challenge of individual achievement and responsibility.

He removes from each person's shoulders the two burdens of achievement and responsibility. These two go hand in hand: if you want achievement, you must take responsibility. But because people are afraid of facing this challenge, and do not believe they are perfect or without flaws, they are afraid to bear such a burden. They think it is a burden, but in fact it is not.

Individuals can survive without organizations -- they can, again -- but organizations cannot survive without individuals.

No organization exists without people; an organization without members does not exist. So individuals can survive without depending on organizations, but organizations necessarily depend on the existence of individuals.

And the most effective organizations are composed of individuals who affirm their own individual rights within a group, and do not want to hide behind the group.

What does this mean? It means that the most effective organization, or the best organization, is one in which each person exercises his own rights within it, and no one hides behind the team using the team as a shield. He himself must bear the responsibility. Everything the team does is the decision of each of them; he cannot shirk the responsibility by saying "this is a collective decision, this is the team's decision, it has nothing to do with me." No. If it is that kind of organization, it is not a good organization. A truly good organization is one in which each person takes up this burden. He himself is both a part of the group and a spokesperson and representative of the group; he cannot shift the responsibility onto the group.

Organized action is an excellent method of exerting influence.

To exert influence you certainly need organization; one person's influence is very small after all.

But only when each member is spontaneous, only when he or she asserts his or her individuality through group action, rather than blindly seeking to follow the direction of others.

That is to say, in a good organization, each member uses the organization to express his or her individuality, rather than to erase his or her individuality, and certainly not to suppress or prevent the expression of his or her individuality for some so-called interest of the group.

So having said this, you know that the teal organization we are now building based on the spiritual university is precisely in complete accord with Seth's theory -- a truly good organization must be spontaneous, and each member must have his or her own rights within it, and will not be suppressed by the power of the group. Each person must express his or her own individuality, assert his or her individuality. The goals of the organization and the goals of the individual are aligned; it is not about sacrificing some individual to achieve something for the organization. No, they are consistent; individual goals and organizational goals are consistent.

The Distortion of Idealism and the Beliefs of Fanatics

Fanatics exist because of a great gulf between an idealized good and an exaggerated version of its opposite.

Why do fanatics exist? There is an idealized good -- good itself is not the problem, but when you over-idealize it, that is wrong. And then there is an exaggerated version of evil as the opposite of good. The interaction of these two produces fanatics.

The idealized good is projected into the future.

We say a very ideal good, and he projects it into the future. For example, building some kind of communism, building some kind of great human unity, and so on -- he places these in a distant future.

But at the same time, the exaggerated opposite of that good -- that is, the evil -- is seen as pervading the present.

You see, we want to realize communism, realize the common ideal of humanity, and so on, but right now we face enemies before our eyes. They will not let us realize our communism, so we must eliminate these enemies before we can realize our communism. For the sake of a distant ideal good, he sets up a bunch of real enemies right in front of him. This is a characteristic of fanatics.

The individual is seen as powerless to work toward that effort alone.

One person alone will not do; there is almost no possibility of success. This is what the fanatical faction believes. The individual will not do; everyone must twist together into one rope and work together.

Because they believe in his powerlessness, fanatics feel that any means to achieve the end is justified.

Because he feels he is powerless, he is weak, therefore he can use any means necessary to achieve his goal. This is also the case with criminals. Seth has a session specifically about how criminals work -- criminals are also powerless. It is precisely because of his sense of powerlessness that he resorts to unconventional means. Because he feels "I am powerless, I am weak, in order to survive, in order to live, I have to resort to stealing, robbing, and all kinds of behavior." Fanatics are similar. He feels he is powerless, so he feels that since I am powerless, I can use any means necessary to achieve my idealized good; I can do anything.

Behind all of this is his belief.

What belief is that?

That the ideal will never be achieved spontaneously.

They believe that the ideal absolutely cannot be achieved spontaneously. And if left to himself, a person will make things worse and worse in every respect. This is the belief of these fanatics -- the ideal absolutely cannot be achieved automatically and spontaneously; it must be realized in a collective environment, through management, through cohesion, through systems. Relying on himself, or relying on each person acting spontaneously, the ideal can never be achieved; things will only get worse and worse, only get more and more messed up.

How can a flawed self expect to spontaneously achieve any good?

Because they believe that every person is flawed, under such a belief, how can he believe that a flawed person, under spontaneous and automatic conditions, could achieve anything good? Impossible. Without restraint, good results cannot be achieved; the results will certainly be bad. This is the belief behind fanatics.

After-Class Exchange

Seth said: "End of chapter. End of dictation."

Then he finally said that Ruburt had begun writing that poem again, that he was on the right track, and about the plans for his new book, and that they were doing well. He said to Rob, "Good night to you both," and the session ended.

After that there are some notes, which are not important. Jane said: "I feel really pleased, and Seth ended the material very well. I also feel good about the poetry collection, Heroes. Before the session I was worried about whether we would get anything good, and whether I could put it in this book, or whether it would just sit idle for years. But some of what you said just now helped."

Then Rob said: "I no longer worry about things like that." That is, some session content is very good, but cannot be put into the book, and can only be put into private sessions or something like that, in which case it might not be published for years. Rob said: "I no longer worry about this kind of thing. I find I do not want to spend time worrying, so I changed my belief."

You see, Rob was also changing his beliefs, no longer worrying about this issue. "I cannot continue doing that anymore."

Then Jane, as Seth, returned loudly and humorously. Seth returned humorously, leaning forward with his very dark, large eyes, and said:

You never should have worried -- and neither should Jane. The book sessions will contain everything that needs to be included.

Seth said you do not need to worry. He said that the sessions I give, such as private sessions or content not part of the regular sessions, might be regretted for not being included in the formal book. He said no, you do not need to worry; the sessions for this book will include everything that needs to be included.

Then Rob said, I know. At that moment Seth was staring at me as he said it: do not worry. At 10:23, when I told Jane with some humor of my own that even so, I would occasionally insert sessions that I considered especially good or appropriate, though unrelated to the book, into the book Seth was then working on.

Although Rob heard Seth say that the book sessions already included everything that should be included, he said, I will still, according to my own choice, insert some content that is not part of the book into the book. For example, several earlier sessions were not part of the book, but he felt they were related to the book, so he added them in. Rob's words also carried a bit of humor; he said he did not entirely listen to Seth either.

Session 855

Opening: Rob's Insertion

This section is the sixth and final part of Chapter 7 of The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, and it is Session 855 of the book, held on Monday, May 21, 1979, at 9:15 p.m.

At the start of the session, Rob said that at the end of the previous session, Seth had told him that he would include everything that needed to be included in this book, that he should not be afraid of leaving anything out, and that he need not always be thinking about supplementing it with material from private sessions or other sessions. But Rob wrote that he would still choose to place other especially appropriate material into the book Seth was currently working on -- that according to his own choice, he would insert private sessions or other material that Seth had transmitted to them during the period of dictating this book, whenever he felt it was suitable. Rob said, that was an opportunity for me to show how independent I am. You see, Rob also had quite a personality. He said, I want to show my independence, I'll do it my own way. And this opportunity came much sooner than he had expected -- at the end of the previous session he had not thought it would come so soon, because it was in tonight's session that he inserted it.

In fact, this material was inserted into tonight's session, which at least caused some delay to the first session Seth was to give for Chapter 8. Originally it should have been the first session of Chapter 8, but Seth did not proceed with that; he first supplemented it with this material. And the content of this session was not originally part of this book, but Rob felt that this material was very suitable for inclusion in this book. Once you have finished reading it, you will see that it is indeed very suitable, and it was inserted extremely well.

A Physics Professor's Letter

Rob said that at the end of Session 852, he mentioned that Jane received a letter last month from a physics professor. This was from a recent non-book Seth session -- Seth, through Jane, gave part of an answer to that professor's questions. A physics professor had seen Jane's published book The Seth Material³³, raised some questions, and hoped Jane could answer them. This professor was also quite curious and quite open. This afternoon Jane reread that letter, curious whether Seth would give more answers. The reason Rob placed the excerpt here is this: Seth's material fits this book very well, and he did not want to wait indefinitely for Seth to put this material into another book. And generally speaking, tonight Seth addressed many questions that readers have asked before.

This session is especially interesting and especially important. That professor's questions are questions that many readers, especially people in the sciences, are willing to ask, and Seth's material gave further answers to some of those questions, and answered them very well.

Seth's Reply

Seth said, earlier today, Ruburt was curious and wondered whether I would dictate more replies to your scientists. While he was speculating, I responded very briefly: since we come from such different viewpoints, it is in fact very difficult to give your scientists an adequate reply. Our viewpoints are so far apart that it is truly hard for me to give a scientist the kind of reply he wants.

Seth said, I could dictate a reply that would satisfy him considerably, but it is very likely that the more this reply tries to make him understand, the more distortion it would create. He said I would very much like to give him some satisfactory concrete replies to his specific questions -- such as whether the soul actually exists, whether higher dimensions exist, questions of time and space, and so on; he might ask many questions of this kind. But because the gap in understanding between us is so great, the reply I give him could only distort his ideas further, not make them clearer.

Because some questions, fundamentally speaking, are themselves wrong, or are themselves questions that do not exist. You ask a question, and you think I am very smart, I thought it through well, I asked a very good question -- yet some questions, from a certain angle, are themselves questions without any meaning at all. This is why Seth did not directly answer many of the specific questions that scientist asked. It is not that he could not answer them, but that if he did, what the other party understood would still be distorted. So he said some other things instead.

Jane's Context and the Limits of Science

Seth went on to say that Ruburt does not have a scientific context, and this is not a coincidence -- it is not a coincidence, it was deliberately chosen by Seth. Although Jane does indeed possess a scientific, intuitive mind. Although Jane is a novelist and a poet, you will find that throughout the entire process of transmitting the Seth material, she used words that were as brief, scientific, concise, and clear as possible, rarely using too many adjectives, flowery phrases, or descriptive language. Everything was declarative sentences, even clause nested within clause, in order to make the point clear. So much of the time, many passages of the Seth material read like academic papers, which is also why many people are unwilling to read it -- it is not as easy to read as a novel. Its mode of expression is more often like an academic paper, with that kind of rigor and subordinate-clause style.

Seth said that Jane does not have the context of a scientist, but Jane has the mindset and intuition of a scientist, and she tried her best to ensure the impartial, unbiased character of the Seth material. He said that if one wanted Jane to describe reality in scientific terms, this attempt itself pays that vocabulary a respect it does not deserve -- given the science they currently understand. To put it simply, if you insist on having Jane, or Seth, use the so-called scientific language that scientists like, understand, or approve of to explain reality or the truth of the universe, then you are insulting the word "science." Because your so-called scientific vocabulary is itself unscientific.

Seth's view is this: that vocabulary automatically shrinks larger ideas down to fit its strict demands. The strictness that science emphasizes is that everything must be experimentally verified and repeatable. In other words, this attempt aggravates the problem of "thinking about a universe as if it were objective, and describing the universe in an objective manner" -- your so-called scientific context merely shrinks a larger concept into a smaller concept, discarding the more important or larger parts, and studying only that very small part. You have already contracted its extension and intension at the conceptual level, and to study the universe at that level, while still wanting to describe the objective universe as you understand it in an objective way, makes the problem even more serious, which is to say, even more distorted.

The Universe Is a Psychological Manifestation

That universe, no matter what word you use—call it the universe, call it the world, the name doesn't matter—it is a spiritual, mental, or psychological manifestation. This is what we need to remember. The true universe, or what we call true reality, is a spiritual or mental or psychological manifestation. From a scientific angle, it is a manifestation of consciousness, but the word "consciousness" can also be misunderstood, so Seth used several terms to represent it—you could also call it a spiritual, mental, psychological, or conscious manifestation. The universe is an expression of this consciousness, or an expression of spirituality.

And the universe is not an objective phenomenon in the usual sense of your terms. The universe is a subjective expression of consciousness. This is the most fundamental divergence that surpasses all scientists' understanding: the universe is a subjective world, and it is never an objective phenomenon. Only scientists on Earth think the universe is an objective phenomenon. Seth emphasized this again here. So on this issue, this enormous divergence has already arisen, and it cannot be bridged—this is a fundamental divergence. So now you know why Seth doesn't answer his questions—he can't answer them, because the two of you are fundamentally different, and no matter how he explains it to you, you cannot understand.

At present, there is no conceptual framework in science, religion, or psychology that can come close to explaining this universe, or indirectly describe the magnitude of such a universe. The richness of the universe, its vastness—not physical vastness, but its true richness, the richness of consciousness—there is simply no existing framework that can correspond to it. Whether from science, psychology, or religion, you cannot find an effective framework to describe or indirectly describe the supreme vastness of that universe. That is the trouble. And Seth's system is an attempt to construct for us, as much as possible, a description that can approach or indirectly approach the truth of the universe—the existing ones are still not up to the task.

The nature of this universe is psychological, following psychological logic, the logic of the psyche. Here "psyche" or "spirituality" is a better translation. Because as soon as you say "psyche," it involves the problem of human beings—psyche, after all, requires a person to have a mind, and with a person and a mind, this psyche must carry something human. But in fact, the nature of the universe has nothing to do with human beings—remember this firmly: the nature of the universe has nothing to do with human beings. So the word "spirituality" is better here. The nature of the universe follows two basic logics. One is the logic of consciousness. But consciousness is very hard to understand—what carries consciousness? Energy. Energy is the kind of energy that carries consciousness, just as cell phone signals or television signals are all a kind of electromagnetic wave, and within electromagnetic energy are carried those image signals, sound signals, text signals—those signals are consciousness. And this energy and consciousness, the two are inseparable. The consciousness in this real world is not the same as electromagnetic waves—consciousness and energy are one; consciousness is that energy, and energy is that consciousness. So you cannot use electromagnetic waves to understand it; I only used that as an analogy to help you understand. And all the physical properties you know are reactions of that deeper thing.

So the basic characteristics of the universe are the basic characteristics of energy and the basic characteristics of consciousness. If you imagine the universe, imagine it as an energy or a network of energy, or a web of consciousness, or a vast system of consciousness—that makes it easier to understand.

Seth said, once again, every atom and molecule, and any particle you can imagine, possesses a consciousness. Unless you accept such a statement—that all things have consciousness—and take it as a foundational doctrine, most of my material will seem meaningless. Therefore, any new scientific theory, if it hopes to function in leading to the acquisition of true knowledge, must be based on this statement. What statement? That the foundation of the universe is consciousness, and consciousness is the most basic attribute and foundation of this universe. If you truly want to investigate the truth of this world, without first acknowledging this, there is no way to proceed further—no matter how you proceed from there, it will be wrong. Only by first acknowledging that all things have consciousness, and that all physical material worlds are generated and created by consciousness, and understanding this point, does it become meaningful to discuss what the truth of the universe is. This is what Seth said—this is the foundation.

The Limits of Language and the Order of the Universe

Seth says, because I must use objective vocabulary, but I want to tell you, I still have to use objective vocabulary, so I will forever be searching for analogies. Speaking of objective vocabulary, I am using a kind of language, for example right now I am using English, and it automatically sets up its own perceptual net of rules -- the grammatical structure and vocabulary of English automatically set up a perceptual filter. It can only express the meanings it is capable of expressing; it is limited. Any language is limited, and of course any other language, to some degree, will necessarily be the same.

Let me give an example. Take an ancient Chinese poem -- if you want to translate it into English, the difficulty is extremely high. You can translate the meaning, but you cannot translate the artistic conception. If you want to translate the artistic conception of an ancient poem, your level of English would have to reach some unimaginable height. I give this example so you understand that every language has its limitations. That is not to say Chinese is somehow superior -- there are things in English that Chinese also struggles to express. Every language has its own limitations.

As Seth has said before, the expansion of the universe is like the expansion of a concept. You must understand this. How does the universe expand? How does it develop new things, new planets, new worlds? It is exactly the same as how your thoughts and concepts expand. How the thoughts in your mind expand is exactly how the universe expands. If you can understand this, then you can understand a part of the true nature of the universe, and you will probably have a sense of it.

In your terms, from a human perspective, it is like how sentences are built upon individual words, and paragraphs are built upon individual sentences, and just as every structure within that grammatical framework maintains its own logic. Each word has the logic of a word -- roots, pronunciation, meaning. Chinese characters are even more complex, with the six methods of character formation³⁴. Sentence patterns also have their own meanings -- interrogative sentences, rhetorical questions, imperative sentences, exclamatory sentences -- each sentence pattern has its own unique logic and structure. Different words in different sentence patterns represent different meanings, and each sentence in different paragraphs also represents different meanings, and the meaning itself depends on how you understand it. This is a very interesting thing.

Then it maintains its own logic, continuity, and evidence in the same way. Therefore, all parts of the universe also appear to you to have the same cohesiveness, consistency, and order. Seth uses language as an example to help us understand the universe: the consciousness of this universe itself, what it manifests, appears to be something continuous, meaningful, and orderly, just as our language is orderly, logical, and relational. But if you break it down further, the order, continuity, and meaning of the universe itself lies in your understanding of it. Take each individual word out -- for example, Chinese characters, each character has meaning, but its meaning is diverse. Just as an atom has many, many meanings, when you combine it with different atoms to form different molecules, it becomes different. Just as different Chinese characters -- combine several thousand characters, and you can create an infinite variety of linguistic combinations. Think of Chinese characters as atoms: the meaning of the character itself only has its own meaning at the atomic level, but what it means in this sentence, in this paragraph, in this context -- that depends on how you understand, how you feel, how you perceive this sentence at that moment. However you perceive it is correct, because its meaning itself is rich enough.

Let me give another simple example. A couple of days ago I saw a video on Douyin about the stages of love -- from the beginning of a relationship, to passionate love, to the final breakup and heartbreak -- all of which can be expressed with the same sentence. Which sentence? When you are falling in love, you are falling in love with someone; when you are in passionate love, you are falling in love with someone; when you have broken up, no one pays attention to you anymore, and you are all alone, you fall in love with someone. These three instances of "falling in love with someone" have three completely different meanings in three different states. The seasoned veterans will all understand; if you did not get it, you may still be relatively young and innocent. I give this very concrete example -- does it help you understand that between language and its so-called continuity and order, it is only your understanding? You cannot investigate what the truth really is; there is no truth -- however you understand it, that is the truth. Its real truth is not at the level of your understanding, but somewhere very, very deep.

Seth says, any sentence is meaningful. When you use it, it seems to arrange itself in order automatically; you automatically speak according to your logic, and the sentence comes out automatically. A sentence is meaningful because of the organization of its letters; if it is spoken by you, then it is because of the organization of the vowels, syllables, and consonants you produce. Letters arranged in sequence form what you write; vowels and syllables form what you speak -- both are organization. But they are meaningful not only because of the letters or vowels or syllables used within them, but because of all the letters and vowels or syllables that are excluded. That is to say, the complete meaning of this sentence includes not only the letters and sounds that are in it, but also those that are not -- the words not written, the sounds not uttered -- they together form the meaning of the sentence itself.

Seth discussed this issue specifically in an earlier book, discussing language and "the sounds of substitution" -- the source of language. When he talked about the sounds of substitution, he discussed how human language came into being and the real background behind it. I will not expand on that here.

What he wants to tell us in this passage is this: you see this universe as meaningful, orderly, logical, and lawful, presenting what you think it presents -- for example, Newton's first, second, and third laws, Einstein's laws, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of dynamics, and now quantum mechanics, relativity, all kinds of cosmic laws, cosmic logic, the forms the universe manifests, and its continuous, unbroken continuity -- it is not like the old movies that stutter, frame by frame, but rather a very smooth, silky, silk-smooth continuous state. He says, that is all a feeling of yours; that is not the truth of the universe, it is only that you feel it is that way. Just like language -- you think you understand this sentence to mean a certain thing, but those meanings are not merely the meanings produced by the literal combination of letters; more so, it is those words not spoken, those sounds not uttered, those characters not written -- those things are equally meaningful. We often say, "listen to the tone when someone speaks, listen to the sound when the gongs and drums are struck" -- listen to the meaning behind the words, the meaning beyond the strings -- that is exactly what this means.

This also applies to your universe. The reason this universe is meaningful, consistent, and orderly is not only because of the realities that are presented and obvious to you, but also because of those inner realities that are unspoken and concealed.

Seth says, in scientific terms -- I am not just talking about hidden variables. I am not talking about those things of probability. Nor am I saying here that the universe is an illusion. Remember this sentence -- Seth did not say the universe is an illusion. Although in many places he says our universe is a camouflage system, camouflage and illusion are two different things. What is camouflage? Beneath the camouflage there is something real; a layer of false things covers it. For example, a cannon hidden in the woods and camouflaged with branches -- you think it is a clump of bushes, but what is real is a cannon. What is an illusion? An illusion is something projected by a projector, or shone by a flashlight -- something that does not exist at all. These two are fundamentally different; do not confuse them.

Seth says, your universe is a camouflage of energy, a camouflage of consciousness, with a material outer appearance wrapped around it, making you feel that it is a physical entity, but the real thing inside is its energy, its consciousness -- that is its core. So your universe is not an illusion, but precisely speaking it is a psychological reality of yours, or a reality of consciousness, or a psychic reality, or a spiritual reality, or an electromagnetic reality of the kind we cannot see. Do not use too many terms like "illusion," "mirage," "dreams, bubbles, and shadows" to think about it -- it is not that; there is something substantial within it. This is also the difference often spoken of between "true emptiness" and "wondrous existence" -- within this emptiness there is something; it is not nothingness, it is just that you cannot sense it.

The objectivity within it is the result of a psychological creation -- you feel it is objective, but that is a sense of objectivity created by your own psyche.

Position Determines the Universe Itself

Seth said something very important here: it is not merely that your idea of reality is relative to your position in the universe, but that according to your position within the universe, the universe itself is also different. This statement is very important, very important, and the psychic or psychological laws are the same.

To put it simply, your perception of this world, of this reality, is not merely -- remember, when he says "not merely," he means "it is that, but not only that" -- is not merely determined by your position in this universe. It is not because we stand on Earth looking at the whole universe, in the Milky Way, at some particular position -- it is not because of that. It certainly has some relation to position, but the primary relation is not there. The greatest change is this: according to the difference in your position within the universe, the universe itself is also different. This is the most wondrous part. In other words, it is not that there is a fixed universe existing out there, waiting for an observer to observe it, and because the angle or point of observation differs, the universe presents a different appearance. It is not merely that the appearance differs, but because the position you occupy is different, the universe itself becomes different. So this is why they say "one flower, one world," "one person, one universe," "one person, one world" -- it is right here: the position you occupy determines what this universe is like.

Then the psychic or psychological laws are the same. Let me give a simple example: when you psychologically comprehend something, it depends on your role within that matter. In this great psychological theater, the position and role you occupy leads to your cognition of the matter -- the psychological world, the psychological drama within your cognition, is different. Why can we use this as an analogy? Because as was said earlier, this universe itself is psychological, spiritual, mental, and you can only understand it through psychological, mental, spiritual laws; you cannot understand it in a material way -- as if the universe had some fixed shape or whatever. No, that is not the case. This statement is very important; you must truly grasp it, and not just let it pass by.

The Freedom and Bondage of Concepts

The universe deals with order, perception, and organization of all kinds — the universe deals with these three main things: order, perception, organization. Each one depends on the others, but each one also operates within its own domain. They are interlocked and influence one another, yet each has its own independent system. For example, Framework 1 has its own set of theories and systems, and Framework 2 has its own systems, but they are also mutually dependent and mutually influential in very subtle ways.

Within the realm of your reality, apart from the freedom of concepts, there is no true freedom; and apart from the bondage of concepts, there is no true bondage. This sentence should also be highlighted. Right here in this reality world that we ourselves perceive, apart from the freedom of concepts there is no true freedom, and apart from the bondage of concepts there is no true bondage. What binds us? It is our concepts. What can set us free? It is also our concepts. So now you know how important our belief system is. Because your concepts form your private and mass reality — concepts and beliefs mean the same thing. If your concepts are not limited, your world is not limited either; if your concepts are limited, then your world is also limited.

Seth once gave an example: each of your concepts, or beliefs, every additional concept, every additional belief, is like a wall standing in your world. You as a person stand in the middle, and if there are more walls, the less you can see, and the smaller your world becomes. When you have removed all limiting beliefs and concepts, when there is nothing left, that is the largest possible world.

We often look at the universe from the outside and examine society from the outside, but in fact we do not realize that these universes and these societies are all formed by our concepts. You still believe that the inner world is somehow always symbolic, while the outer world is the real one. For example, you think that wars start on their own — two groups of people just start fighting, using bombs and guns. Of course someone goes and throws the bombs, of course someone goes and fights the war, but at all times, psychological reality is the primary reality, and it forms all of your reality. Before the actual war begins, everyone has already started fighting psychologically — first they fight psychologically, and only then do they fight on the battlefield.

Understanding the Limits of the Universe

Seth says, it is not that you cannot understand the nature of the universe to some degree. This point is very important. Many people ask, if that is the case, does it mean we humans cannot understand the truth of the universe, that we have no ability to understand the nature of the universe? But remember, it must be "to some degree" -- Seth speaks very precisely. He did not say we can understand the entirety of the universe's nature. We can understand this universe to some degree, up to the limit of human cognition, that is possible. You say, can I have an ultimate one? Sorry, no.

Why not? Because this is the limit of human cognition. You say, once I have learned these things and opened everything up, will I be able to then? You can only say you are approaching it, or that it is an indirect cognition; you can never truly obtain it. Why can you not truly obtain the entirety of the universe? This in itself is a paradox -- that is, the universe itself cannot understand the entirety of the universe either.

Let me give a philosophical example: suppose you had the ability to understand the entirety of the universe. You say, at this very moment, I want to understand the entirety of the universe. At this one point, you want to understand the entire universe. But is this thought and motive of yours also included within the universe? You use this present point to understand the universe; does the universe you understand include the thought you just had of wanting to understand the universe, and the result after you understood the universe? If it does include it, then because you have gained new cognition and new understanding of the universe, has the universe become richer? Do you then have to go understand it again, and understand again the universe you first cognized -- because there is a little more now, there is the added thing of "you going to understand it." If you keep pushing this forward, there is never an end. And this matter itself is also meaningless. Do not think that going to understand the truth of the universe is a meaningful thing; it is in itself meaningless. You say, I understand the truth of the universe to a certain degree -- that is meaningful. You say, I understand the ultimate truth of the universe -- as for that ultimate truth, I can only say you can experience it, you can feel it, but you really have no way to understand it. You can experience it and feel it for a moment, but you cannot say I have grasped it, I hold it clearly in my mind -- that is impossible.

But the answer lies within the nature of your own psyche -- be sure to remember the earlier "to some degree," do not forget the "to some degree." If you want to understand the universe to some degree, then the answer lies within the nature of your psyche, within your inner self, within the individual creative process.

The Problem with True Science

Only when you are engaged in the kind of inquiry that asks the following questions are you truly studying the problem. Remember all of these questions, for each of them can expand your thinking:

Where does this thought come from? Where does it go? What effect does it have on ourselves or on others? How did I learn to dream when I was never taught? How do I speak when I do not understand the mechanism of speech? When I clearly have physical life and death, why do I feel that I still have an eternal reality?

Then Seth says, these are not scientific questions — some people will certainly feel that way, because do not forget, what we just read is all from Seth's reply to that physicist. He tells that scientist that these are the most scientific questions of all. If physicists or scientists think these are not scientific questions, then they are precisely wrong — these are the true scientific questions, and these are the questions that science ought to answer.

To a certain degree, the attempt on the part of science to consider this kind of material may perhaps — remember, it is "may perhaps," not a certainty — bring about the qualities of true scientific intuition. If one day scientists truly study the Seth material, it may perhaps bring to scientists that quality of scientific intuition. Scientists today do not speak of intuition; they speak only of reason and logic. Seth says, if scientists one day begin to seriously study what I have written, only then can they acquire what is called true scientific intuition. Only after they have this scientific intuition can it help your science bridge the gap that exists between its own viewpoint and the different viewpoint held by us — and by "us" Seth means people like himself. Only when he has this scientific intuition can he understand where this enormous gap lies between their cognition and Seth's cognition. If he does not even have this quality of intuition, he cannot even see that the gap exists, let alone make progress or develop.

This is Seth's reply to a physical scientist. This passage is very short, but very important. In itself there is no great difficulty, and many of the lines in it are truly classic.

注释与核实

1. Source: Wikipedia "1979 Red River Valley tornado outbreak" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Red_River_Valley_tornado_outbreak) ↩

2. This claim could not be verified. ↩

3. This claim could not be verified. ↩

4. Source: Associated Press "SpaceX: Rocket for moon, Mars and NY-to-Shanghai in 39 mins" (2017) (https://phys.org/news/2017-09-spacex-rocket-moon-mars-ny-to-shanghai.html) ↩

5. Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident" (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle) ↩

6. This claim could not be verified. ↩

7. According to Mike's original words, "In the United States one is not an adult until 21"; upon verification, it should be "The legal age of majority in the United States is set by each state, and in the vast majority of states (47 states and Washington, D.C.) it is 18, in Alabama and Nebraska it is 19, and only in Mississippi is it 21; 21 is the uniform national legal drinking age, not the age of majority." (Source: Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute "Wex: Minor," https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minor) ↩

8. Source: Sikila "The Love of Guanyin" (https://books.google.com/books/about/%E8%A7%80%E9%9F%B3%E4%B9%8B%E6%84%9B.html?id=WhnanQEACAAJ) ↩

9. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "Jonestown" (https://www.britannica.com/event/Jonestown) ↩

10. Source: The Bible, Leviticus 19:18 (https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-18.htm) ↩

11. Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident" (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle) ↩

12. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "Garden of Eden" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Garden-of-Eden) ↩

13. Source: North Carolina Council on the Holocaust "The Holocaust: A North Carolina Teacher's Resource" 2019 (https://www.dpi.nc.gov/documents/holocaust-council/guide/ch1-2-0/open) ↩

14. Source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum "Holocaust Encyclopedia: Lebensborn Program" (https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/lebensborn-program) ↩

15. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "Tao-te Ching" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tao-te-Ching) ↩

16. Source: Charlie Chaplin official website "The Great Dictator" (https://www.charliechaplin.com/en/films/7-the-great-dictator/videos/1544-Charlie-Chaplin-Adenoid-Hynkel-Speech-The-Great-Dicator-194-) ↩

17. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "Exodus | Definition, Summary, & Facts" (https://www.britannica.com/event/Exodus-Old-Testament) ↩

18. According to Mike's original words, "Egypt once massacred Jews on a large scale, so Moses led them out of Egypt and fled to what is today Jerusalem"; upon verification, it should be "According to the narrative in the Book of Exodus, the destination of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt was Canaan (the Promised Land), not Jerusalem, and Moses himself did not enter it; he died on Mount Nebo east of the Jordan after gazing at the Promised Land from afar, and Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan; Jerusalem became the capital of Israel only much later." (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "Moses | Story, Summary, Significance, & Facts," https://www.britannica.com/biography/Moses-Hebrew-prophet) ↩

19. This claim could not be verified. ↩

20. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "Macartney Embassy" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Macartney-Embassy) ↩

21. According to Mike's original words, "From the end of World War II in 1945 to today it has been a full 76 years"; upon verification, it should be "World War II ended in 1945 (Nazi Germany surrendered on May 8, and Japan signed the instrument of surrender on September 2), and 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the war's end, so by 2026 it will be 81 years, not 76." (Source: U.S. National Archives "80 Years Since the End of World War II," https://visit.archives.gov/whats-on/explore-exhibits/80-years-end-world-war-ii) ↩

22. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "World War I" "How Did World War II Start?" (https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I) ↩

23. Source: Atomic Heritage Foundation / National Museum of Nuclear Science & History "Scientist Refugees and the Manhattan Project" (https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/scientist-refugees-and-manhattan-project/) ↩

24. Source: Wikipedia "Operation Downfall" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall) ↩

25. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "Spanish Inquisition" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Spanish-Inquisition) ↩

26. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica "Salem witch trials" (https://www.britannica.com/event/Salem-witch-trials) ↩

27. According to Mike's original words, "1970, when the Cold War was still at its hottest"; upon verification, it should be "1970 was in the period of U.S.-Soviet detente rather than the most tense period of the Cold War—the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) had already begun in November 1969, and 1969 to 1979 is regarded as the era of detente; the peak of Cold War tension is usually identified as the 1961 Berlin Crisis and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis." (Source: Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State "Detente and Arms Control, 1969-1979," https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/detente) ↩

28. This claim could not be verified. ↩

29. Source: Chinese Text Project "Laozi Daodejing Jiaoshi: Chapter 1" (https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?chapter=373803&if=gb&remap=gb) ↩

30. Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident" (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle) ↩

31. Source: Global Bible Initiative "Chinese Standard Bible, Genesis Chapter 3" (https://www.bible.com/zh-CN/bible/43/GEN.3.CSBS) ↩

32. This claim could not be verified. ↩

33. This claim could not be verified. ↩

34. Source: Xu Shen "Shuowen Jiezi" (according to Wikipedia "Chinese character classification / Liushu") (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liushu) ↩