Mike's commentary · The "Unknown" Reality, Session 690

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

Introduction

This chapter revolves around units of consciousness, evolution, and religious history. Consciousness must specialize within physical reality; units of consciousness make lessons transferable between species, evolution occurs in parallel, and cells rely on precognition of past and future to maintain bodily structure. Seth uses Western civilization as an example to show that gods are psychic blueprints, that religion plays a role in the development of tribes, nations, and civilizations, and then traces the relationship among Christ, Protestantism, and American democracy, finally proposing that a cooperative new humanity is emerging. The appendix adds supplementary material on the value climate of psychological reality and the distinction between the sexes.

Key Points of This Chapter

• Consciousness must specialize within physical reality, and units of consciousness make it possible for the lessons learned by different species to be transferred.
• Evolution is not a single line from the past to the future; rather, it pre-cognitively influences the present state of chromosomes and genes from the future.
• Cells rely on precognition of the past and future to maintain the body's structure, and cells of the past, present, and future are in constant communication.
• Deities represent the psychic plans of peoples, and religion in Western civilization has played the role of organizing tribes, preserving knowledge, and shaping political structures.
• The spatial growth of concepts and the free expression of thought are prerequisites for humanity's further development, and the new human emerging in the future will take cooperation as its primary strength and be connected with nature.

Main Text

This episode covers Session 690 of Volume 1 of The "Unknown" Reality, titled "Names, Gods, and the Self: Christ, Gifts, and the History of Christianity," which began on Thursday, March 21, 1974, at 9:32 p.m.¹

Seth begins by saying: in order to be effective within our reality system—right here in our three-dimensional world, within physical reality—consciousness must of course deal with specialization.

What does the specialization of consciousness mean? He has mentioned this term many times before, and some of you may not quite understand it. The specialization of consciousness refers to consciousness focusing on a single point at the level of physical matter. From another angle, our consciousness should be holistic: our consciousness should be dealing with that state of integration—all things as one, consciousness as one, our oneness with All That Is, our oneness with all consciousness. That is the state our consciousness should be dealing with. Yet, if we want to be effective in this three-dimensional world of ours—for our experience to be effective, our perception to be effective, our feelings to be effective, our sense of life force to be effective—consciousness must engage in this specialized processing directed at matter, must be singled out from this integration and deal with this specialization.

Then he says:

Beneath these, so to speak, units of consciousness are aware of the various different consciousnesses of which they are a part.

You may read this sentence and not know what he is trying to say. What he means is this: as this specialization—and by specialization we mean materialization—beneath some of these materializations, units of consciousness (we know that units of consciousness are the most basic units that make up all kinds of realities; the basic units of both material and nonmaterial realities are these units of consciousness) are able to be aware of what? They are aware of the different consciousnesses of which they are a part. All consciousness is also composed of units of consciousness; all ideas, thoughts, and notions are composed of units of consciousness; the underlying layer of our physical world is also composed of units of consciousness. What he is saying here is this: units of consciousness are able to be aware of the consciousness composed of themselves—as a foundational unit, the most basic unit, it can be aware of the larger gestalt, the larger gestalt consciousness that it itself builds and forms, and it can be aware of different ones.

We have discussed this before: units of consciousness are the smallest; above them are the EE units, somewhat larger, straddling the threshold between the material and nonmaterial worlds, and also the smallest units observable in our physical world. Then they go on to form—for example, what we consider in quantum mechanics to be the fundamental strings within superstring theory²—those basic strings, which through different vibrational frequencies and patterns form different elementary particles, and these elementary particles then form atoms, molecules, and all the things we see in the physical world. Each level rising upward is a larger gestalt consciousness of these units of consciousness. So what he is saying is that consciousness exists at different levels—although units of consciousness are the smallest units, they are able to sense the increasingly larger gestalt consciousness at every level above them, formed by them, all the way up to the material level, where they can also be aware of it.

He continues:

Certain organizations, behaviors, and experiments inherently rule out other equally valid different approaches.

By "organizations," he means the organization of units of consciousness, the organization of consciousness, or the organization of material forms; "behaviors" refers to certain behaviors; and by "experiments," he is referring here to experiments in consciousness from humanity's ancient past—experiments in consciousness that bring about changes in material form. At the level of consciousness, these are experiments in consciousness; at the material level, they appear as experiments like genetic combinations and genetic recombination—different expressions of the same thing. But no matter at which level they occur, these experiments in change, behavior, and organization all mean that other possibilities are ruled out.

For example: if an experiment in consciousness tries to combine a human's consciousness with a snake's consciousness, then it may create a material, biological combination of human and snake, which rules out the combination of human and frog, as well as all other possibilities beyond that. That is what he means in this passage.

So each one rules out all other possibilities—including organization as well; when you choose one organization, you rule out the other possibilities.

The units of consciousness beneath all matter are, by their unfettered nature, familiar with all of these organizations.

Beneath our reality, beneath physical reality, are the units of consciousness. Units of consciousness are unfettered, and they are familiar with these material forms—through their own unordered, unfettered nature, they are in fact familiar with the matter composed of them. As mentioned earlier, they can be aware of it; they are familiar with it.

So the lessons learned by one species can indeed be transferred to another.

What this means is: early humans and early life forms, with all their diversity—because this section focuses on humanity in the very distant past—although they appear different in material form and biological form, at the bottom they are all composed of units of consciousness. Because the underlying units composing consciousness are all units of consciousness, the lessons or skills learned by one species can actually be directly taken up and used by other species, because they are connected at the foundational level. This whole passage has been building up to this point—he is explaining why this is so, and the reason is that the underlying units of consciousness are connected.

He pauses for a moment, then gives an example:

One species may devote itself to a particular experiment in consciousness, and that knowledge is given or transferred to another species, where it appears in the form of instinct. At that point it will be used as the basis for a different kind of behavior, exploration, or experiment.

For example: when one species carries out a particular experiment in consciousness, it gains certain knowledge. For instance, its combination with the consciousness of a certain kind of language—that is one kind of experiment. The experience gained from this experiment will simultaneously be directly acquired by other experiments or other species. And in those other species, what this species gained manifests as a form of instinct—that is, as an ability that is already there, something it does not need to learn or experiment with, something it is born knowing how to do. We often see this in animals. Many people ask, why are so many animals born knowing how to do this or that? Now you understand why—because the underlying layer works this way.

So in this case, the efficiency of experimentation is very high—it is not the case that one finishes learning and then waits for the next, or that evolution and development proceed linearly according to Darwin's view. It is not like that. He will address this issue below. So it will be used for other different kinds of behavior—in another species (what we call a biological combination, or another biological species), it takes the experience of those consciousness experiments from other species, learns them, and then develops further on the basis of that species' new experiments, new behaviors, and new explorations. It does not start over from scratch; it is very clever.

I have said that evolution did not exist in any kind of single line, such as the time sequence from ape to man, as you suppose. Nor did any other species develop in that manner. On the contrary, not only is it not single-line, but the development is parallel. Your time perception, for example, only shows you one slice of the whole cake.

Here he again emphasizes what I just said, and gives an example: the evolution we imagine is this kind of experience—a species gains an evolutionary experience, an evolutionary advance, and then has to wait for that advance to carry over into the next historical period, with the new species continuing the old species' experience. He says it is not like that; they develop in parallel. The experience gained by one species is directly paralleled to another species, and that other species can acquire the previous species' experiment. And all of this—my so-called "previous" is not a sequential order of experiments—they happen simultaneously.

This is different from our human understanding of species evolution and human origins. We think it is one after another, starting from the dumbest and experimenting and accumulating bit by bit. It is not. Here Seth points out to you that it happens and develops simultaneously and in parallel, which is highly efficient. But because we humans can only understand things in terms of time, we can only perceive this world through time, so what we see is a linear progression—there is no way around that. Usually you can only see one slice of the cake, not the whole cake.

However:

Thinking in terms of continuous time, evolution is not a movement from the past into the future.

He says, from another angle, because you humans are only good at thinking in a single-threaded way—from past, to present, to future, from ancient times to the present, a single-threaded process of development—he says that even if we understand it in the single-threaded way you are familiar with, your current understanding is still wrong and still skewed. Why? Because you think the past created the present, and the present creates the future. He says that is not the case; even in terms of single-threaded development through time, things do not work that way.

Rather, it is the opposite:

Man was precognitively aware of the changes he wanted to make, and from that future he altered the present state of chromosomes and genes, bringing about the specific changes he desired in the probable future.

He uses humanity as an example: what we humans want to develop into in the future—the blueprint mentioned earlier about the future, the blueprint of his own most idealized position within the whole world—he has had that all along. Based on that blueprint, he then turns back and changes his present state—changing the chromosomes or genes of the present state. And this change is made according to a precognitive awareness of the future. All of this is described in single-threaded terms, but what is actually closer to the truth is that it is parallel, processed simultaneously. You need to understand this.

That is, you need to look at this issue from two angles: sometimes from the angle of the earthly world or the material world, it is like this; at other times, from the angle of higher-dimensional consciousness, it is processed in parallel. In other words, the achievements we make today—whether in science and technology, or in our spiritual practice, expansion of consciousness, and spiritual development—all have an influence on the past. We are like a lighthouse in the future, pulling along those changes in the past. So the past has not died; it is still happening. This is very interesting. From another angle, our creations today, our learning today, directly influence our entire present, past, and future—it does not only influence our probable future. In other words, it is actually the future that influences our present. From a more rational perspective, this point—whether the previous view or this one—is completely inverted and opposite to human will and human understanding.

At the same time, above and below your usual focus of consciousness, time is experienced in an entirely different fashion, and is often manipulated, just as you physically manipulate matter.

At this focus of consciousness of ours—our current focus of consciousness is our present awareness at the material level—above this focus can be understood as a higher dimension of consciousness; below the focus of consciousness is the first layer of this consciousness. Whether from the angle of the purely material, three-dimensional world, or from the angle of parallel development in higher dimensions of consciousness, time is experienced in different ways—entirely different ways, unlike our present experience of time. And it is often manipulated, just as you physically manipulate matter. In other words, once we leave this material world of ours, time becomes manipulable—just as we manipulate matter in our world, time at that level can be manipulated.

He has already talked about the issue of time before—do you remember? Besides moving forward and backward, is there not also a direction inward and outward—one going inward, one going outward? You can think of it as a kind of inward curling of time, or something like that—time stopping, or expanding outward. He talked about that earlier, so I will not repeat it. So regarding time, you need to understand that it is different from your current understanding; it is only within this space-time of yours that you understand it according to this time.

All right, let us continue.

Later, so to speak, units of consciousness, in forming the overall structure, formed all of the atoms, molecules, cells, and organs that compose your world.

The phrase "forming the overall structure" here involves a concept from another of his books: when our universe was finally born, it was an overall structure—it was not that first there was this and then there was that; it was complete, appearing all at once. And when it appeared all at once, it contained all of the present, past, and future. Can you understand that? From our time perspective, of course there must first be one thing, and then it slowly develops—the earth going from barren wasteland to lush greenery to the emergence of humanity. But from the perspective of the true birth of the universe, from the perspective of units of consciousness creating this universe, it was an overall, integrally formed structure. This will be discussed in detail in Dreams, "Evolution," and Value Fulfillment; for now, just having this general concept is enough. It was integrally formed, and when it was integrally formed, all of the wholeness was taken into account—all the blueprints were in it, all the possibilities were in it, everything was already prepared.

So here he is saying that when units of consciousness formed the overall structure of this entire world, they formed all the atoms, molecules, cells, and organs needed to compose our world. Can you understand what he means by this—that it was formed as a whole, all at once?

At any given time, changes in the land and changes in species occur in accordance with the overall pattern involving all species, or landmasses and bodies of water.

He says that changes in species on land, changes in continental plates, changes in bodies of water, changes in the oceans—they are holistic and integrated. Here he is still correcting our human misconceptions about evolution and the earth's development. We humans think that the earth's plates changed and evolved in a certain way, and only then did species change, and only then did life move from ocean creatures to land creatures—humans have always believed that all biological life came from the ocean. What he wants to say is not that. He says that from the human perspective, first there were ocean creatures, then land creatures, and so on, and the earth's plates indeed are changing. But what he is telling you is that these changes—including the later emergence of land creatures—were actually designed from the very beginning, already included in the overall plan, all consistent with the overall pattern. That is what he means.

In such cases a magnificent organization of consciousness is involved, at times creative upheavals, in which nature again brings forth from its own precognitive data those situations that best suit its needs.

In such cases, a magnificent organization of consciousness is involved—the most wondrous aspect of consciousness, capable of organizing these things: organizing the land, the oceans, the earth's changes, plate changes, and even the biological evolution within them all very effectively and very well, and even as upheavals. What are upheavals? The earth's climate may undergo sudden changes—as scientists later discovered, for example, ice ages, sudden cooling, sudden warming, and then the sudden splitting of the earth's plates into several major plates, and so on. These are all upheavals, all magnificent changes of consciousness; consciousness has this ability.

Within the changes of this organization, nature again draws from its own precognitive data—that is, its blueprint for the future, the so-called precognitive—and brings forth those situations that best suit its needs. Its blueprint includes all possibilities, and from those possibilities it selects the ones most suited to its needs. For example, after the earth cools, it will select the ecological environment suited to the creatures on earth after the cooling, and this possibility is also within its precognition. The earth's cooling is also one of its upheavals, also one of its experiments, also a kind of experiment in consciousness.

This biological precognition is firmly based in the chromosomes and genes.

This biological precognition is inherent in the chromosomes and DNA; it is not acquired through any other means—it is innate. Not only humans, but other creatures as well, and it is reflected in the cells.

As mentioned earlier, it is in the cells. It is in the cells of every individual, and in every species. The present physical structure of any kind, of any specific body, is maintained only because of the cells' innate precognitive ability.

Any species, any creature—the structure of the cells within their bodies, or the structure within the body—is maintained in its present form only because the cells have a precognitive ability regarding their future. In other words, the present form of our bodies is stabilized and maintained because our cells have a precognition of what they should develop into in the future. He has talked about this before, so I will not repeat it. Without this precognition of the future, without this biological precognition of the future, this thing, this body, this structure of tissues and organs would not exist.

Of course:

To the cells, the future is not experienced as future... it is simply one of the conditions of an experienced present.

To the cells, the future is not the future. We think of it as the future, but to the cells the future is not the future—they have no such concept; future, present, and past are one. It is simply one of the conditions of an experienced present—the future is a certain condition of the present, a certain possibility of the present, except that it has emerged. It is not the future; it is a possibility, an experience in the present moment. But to us humans, it may be the future.

What the cells actually feel is the present, including those things you would consider past and future, and they regard them only as one condition of presentness.

The cells regard the so-called past and future as merely one condition of their present state. If you really want to understand it, you can think of it as a kind of superposition of all states: the cells have this ability, and they can maintain their existing state. In quantum mechanical terms, their present state—is it not equivalent to the quantum state having already collapsed, the wave function having already collapsed, already being an actualized state? But what is wondrous is that the collapse of this actualized state is jointly determined by the wave function of the superposition of all possibilities of its past and future. It is wondrous—it is just that wondrous.

Only by manipulating themselves within a rich medium of possibilities can the cells maintain the body's structure in your time.

They can only manipulate themselves within this medium of possibilities. This medium of possibilities is not our three-dimensional medium, nor is it the medium of our space—because in our three-dimensional space, the states of past, present, and future cannot be placed together. In our space, if a present cell is placed there, it cannot also place a past cell—according to our three-dimensional space, that is how it is. So that medium is insufficient to carry it. Their medium is a rich medium of possibilities. In The Early Sessions, he will specifically introduce what this medium is called, and the appendix will also introduce it.

Our thoughts, our ideas, our consciousness, these multidimensional things—should they not also have a space that carries them, similar to our three-dimensional world? That is, a medium. Everything that happens in our three-dimensional world is inseparable from the medium of space-time: everything that happens to us is determined by a specific space and a specific time—when and where something happened. But in multidimensional space-time, in the space of consciousness, at the level of units of consciousness, what kind of medium is that? In that kind of medium, all possibilities exist. It is precisely because of the existence of that medium that maintains all possibilities as existing that our present cells can maintain a structural stability in the three-dimensional world. Without that multidimensional medium of possibilities, our three-dimensional bodies could not exist.

Between the cell as you know it now, and the cell it was in the past, or the cell it will be in the future, there is constant, ongoing communication and interaction.

We think that once a past cell dies, it is dead, and a future cell has not yet been born, so there should be no connection between them. In fact, he tells you that among the three of them—the past, present, and future cells—there is uninterrupted, constant communication and interaction. Why is there constant communication and interaction? Precisely because of the existence of that multidimensional medium, precisely because of the existence of those possibilities—to the cell, the past, present, and future cells are all, to the present cell, one or several conditions of the present state. It does not regard them as past, nor as future, but only as several possibilities of the cell's present condition.

This kind of idea completely overturns our understanding of the body, cells, biology, and the three-dimensional world. The past, present, and future of cells communicate with one another.

So some people do not understand why some people's cancer can heal instantly. Just the day before yesterday I shared a video in the group—"Only After Dying Once Do You Know What Love Is"—about an Indian woman living in Hong Kong. She is not exactly a girl anymore; she is probably in her thirties or forties. At one point she got cancer in its late stages, and the doctors said she might only have a few hours to live. Within those few hours of life, she entered a near-death state. In that near-death state, she gained an insight—she herself did not realize what kind of state it was. Actually, as we understand it, she came to know an unknown knowing, a very clear insight and understanding. In fact, her consciousness had changed, entering another state—you could call it enlightenment or sudden awakening; it does not matter what we call it. The result was that her entire body was covered with tumors, which you could feel with your hands, as big as ping-pong balls, everywhere; all her organs had already begun to fail, and the doctors said she had only a few hours to live. In that state, she had that insight, and she came back to life. After she came back, the cancer cells in her body were completely gone within a few days. The doctors did not believe it, so they performed biopsies of all the lymphatic tissue throughout her body and a spinal tap biopsy of her spinal cord cells. Nine days later, all the results came back, and not a single cancer cell was found. Yet nine days earlier, her entire body had been full of cancer cells, which had spread almost everywhere—to every part, every tissue, lymph, organs, blood circulation, everywhere.

Many people do not understand why she recovered, or how she recovered. Through what Seth says here about the mutual interaction among the past, present, and future of cells, you can understand why she healed.

The cell's comprehension transcends its present form. The physical reality of a given cell is the result of its focus upon its existence before and after itself in time. And from its knowledge of its past and future, it derives its present structure.

The cell's comprehension can transcend its present form. It is not like you—you understand things based only on the present state, while it can understand across the span of time, across past, present, and future. The cell's present physical reality is the result of its focus upon its states of existence before and after itself in time. Its present structure is maintained because of its cognition and understanding of the past and future.

In broad terms, the same applies to any given species.

It applies not only to humans, but to any species.

You are yourself in time, dependent upon those selves that exist in time before you and after you.

The you in time depends on those selves that exist before you and after you—your past and future selves. Those selves determine the present you. On the basis of a single cell, this is true; from the cellular level, it is true. In terms of the psyche, it is also true—from the spiritual level, from your psyche, from your spirit, it is also true.

Your thoughts and emotions are as real as your cells... they also form organizations.

Your thoughts and emotions are as real as your cells; they also form organizations, they also have their own development, and they also grow like living things. So some emotions, some suppressed things, you may not be aware of them, but in fact they are also developing.

Your desires set out from time, from the you in time, but they travel in all directions.

He started giving examples. For instance, you have a wish, and your wish sets out from this time of yours. You think your wish is moving toward the future—because your wish surely has an effect on what comes later, right? It only affects the future—"In the future I want such and such." But that is your understanding. He tells you it is not so. This wish of yours in the present moment will have an influence both forward and backward, and not only forward and backward, but also inward and outward, upward and downward. So the directions of time are not what you understand, where we humans now have only one direction—namely, moving backward toward the future, and maybe if you travel through time and space you move forward. In fact there are not only these two directions; there are more directions. Let us not talk about those additional ones for now, but just about this forward and backward—your wish is not only pointed at the future; your wish can change the past.

So that is why, as was said earlier about that Indian girl with cancer, the cancer could disappear completely within a few days—the cancer cells were decreasing at the speed you could feel with your hand; from one day to the next you could feel the tumor shrinking and disappearing, at such a fast speed. Why? Because your sudden realization in this present moment, your understanding in this present moment, not only affects the future, it can even change the form of cells in the past. If it changes the form of cells in the past, then can the tumor be as if it had never happened? It is not only a process of healing—of course, from the human point of view, it may be a process of recovery and healing; from the point of view of the cells, from the spiritual point of view, it is returning to the state of the healthy body it had before, and every cell returns to a healthy state. This is the reason it can heal within a few days.

Last time in Guangzhou I met Professor Lu Xinhua, and he said they had done an experiment: under the sound healing of specific sounds, they simultaneously used B-ultrasound to look at a tumor—on one side they used B-ultrasound to monitor the tumor in real time, and on the other side they played certain healing sounds and healing methods. In Professor Lu's words, the tumor was shrinking at a speed visible to the naked eye. How astonishing that is—visible to the naked eye, with the ultrasound pointed at the tumor on this side, sounds playing on that side, and the tumor on this side shrinking. So the wonder of the human body far exceeds the understanding and level of modern Western medicine. Seth here explains it thoroughly for you, telling you why this is so.

So this wish of yours in the present moment is oriented toward all directions of time, moving toward all directions. I just said, forward and backward are two directions in your three-dimensional time, are they not? In fact, in higher dimensions, are not those parallel-world versions of you also influenced by this wish of yours in the present moment? Yes. So from the point of view of consciousness, does it not also influence upward—the higher dimensions of consciousness? It influences them just the same. So he says it is oriented toward all directions; he does not say only the two directions of forward and backward.

In one respect, as a species, your present forms your future. But in an even deeper way, you precognitively perceived the possibilities of your own future, and that helped form the present.

From the human point of view, from our human understanding, it is our present that forms our future. But in a deeper sense, in a sense closer to reality, you precognized the future, and then used those future possibilities to form your present. And that present then in turn makes that probable future become your reality. Such a change makes your present cells develop toward the future, and at the same time brings that future of yours into the possibilities of reality. This is the basic principle of how beliefs create reality. You can probably understand it now, right? Many people do not understand what the underlying principle of beliefs creating reality is—here he basically gives you a simple summary of it, and that is what it means. Because that belief of yours, that wish of yours, is oriented toward all directions of time, and it will come from the future to change your present.

Practically speaking, you may want a new city... The architect draws up plans of what was originally a dream in his mind, ready to begin, and the old houses are torn down.

He gives an example from the practical point of view: we want a new city, so we begin urban renewal and the renovation of old houses. In the architect's mind there is a future image of the city he envisions, the image of the buildings, and he draws it out—that is his precognition—to some degree that is his precognition. This time in Guangzhou we also met our especially lovely architect. He is very rational, but through this exchange he has completely opened up the perceptual system of spiritual feeling, so he may have a very strong feeling about this.

When any architectural designer is designing a blueprint or a building, he must first have one in his mind, and that is his precognition of the future.

Quite simply, in the end, the architect's dream can be called a precognitive event. The probable future is embedded in the present... In the actual plans, action is taken according to the envisioned future.

That possible building exists only in his mind, but when it appears in his drawings, it is embedded in the present. Then in the actual plans, action is taken according to the envisioned future—we actually build this building according to the architectural designer's drawings, rebuild our new city, and bring that future into realization. The future is created in just this way. He is giving a concrete example—not only with regard to the human body, but also with the example of a modern city, it is the same.

In broad terms, mankind has plans for itself as well.

Not only do we have a plan for our cities, he says mankind also has plans for itself, has a plan.

These are based upon a much greater comprehension of probable problems, abilities, and the circumstances involved.

Mankind's plans for itself are based on a much greater comprehension than that of the building or city renovation just mentioned—a comprehension of the probable problems it may face, of the development of its own potentials and abilities, and of the probable circumstances involved in facing these things. The understanding needed to renovate a city can be accomplished by an architectural designer; but the understanding of mankind's plans is far more complex than that. Because that must consider not only architectural aesthetics, architectural design, or the various modular designs in architecture—modular architectural design is quite thought-provoking—it is not only about these things. His plan for mankind's future involves many issues: probable problems must be considered, one's own abilities must be considered, and the circumstances to be faced must also be considered. How complex all these variables are—far more complex than building a new city. That is what he means.

He paused for a while.

The gods acknowledged by a people represented such a psychic plan... projected outward as an ideal.

The gods or totems acknowledged by a people, representing that people, and the meanings they embody, are in fact just such a psychic plan, projected outward as an ideal. So we humans, each people with its own totem—for example, the Chinese people take the dragon as their totem, and that means the dragon is a direction for the future development of the Chinese people. For this people, it is a direction in which they want to develop, a possibility, the wish in the heart of this people. If the Chinese people continue to develop, supposing they develop as a single people, the ideal state they would reach in the end would be like dragon-like humans—able to fly in the sky, possessing all kinds of abilities, that kind of diversity.

Of course, it is not only the dragon; in ancient times there were many, many others. Was there the Jade Emperor? Yes. In ancient times, that heaven—call it the celestial court—the place where the ancient Jade Emperor lived, was described as extraordinarily beautiful. But look now at many cities, many city parks, many built environments—they are already almost the same as the celestial court envisioned in ancient times, and even more comfortable and better than that.

Such a psychic plan would then be followed by actual organizations... Such structures are meant to help communicate such a spiritual evolution on a different level.

That is a psychic plan—we have a plan for the future of this people, and that plan can be embodied through its gods. And according to this psychic plan, it will then be embodied in actual organizations, and such structures are meant to communicate this spiritual evolution on different levels. What does that mean? Look at ancient China: the dragon was taken as its totem, as a symbol of its gods, and therefore the emperor was called the True Dragon Son of Heaven—he would certainly make use of this. We are all descendants of the dragon, and the emperor is the Son of Heaven. Who is the son of Heaven? It is the True Dragon Son of Heaven—he must be a true dragon, and only a true dragon can be the child of Heaven. The dragon is the child of Heaven, so he governs this country and the affairs of the earth on behalf of Heaven. So the emperor's divine right comes from the Heavenly Father—the divine right of the Heavenly Father. From this angle you can see how this spiritual evolution is communicated on different levels.

However, because you live within time, the images of gods will reflect your ideology as it presently appears.

We humans are still within the time of the three-dimensional world, still moving according to linear time. Therefore the images of gods will reflect what our present state of consciousness is—our gods will be whatever that is. To put it in plain words: whatever we now pursue and worship, that thing is a reflection of our present ideology. It is that simple. Whatever you now worship as a god means that is the state in which the ideology of the people of our present era resides.

And at the same time they will also point toward the desired future state.

The gods are not only the appearance of the present state of consciousness; the gods also point out the state toward which they are oriented in the future.

The idea of gods would operate as a psychic and spiritual blueprint... to varying degrees. Each species has such blueprints within it, and these are important.

This idea of gods becomes a blueprint, just like the designer's design drawing, except on a different level—the designer's drawing is in the three-dimensional world, while this psychic blueprint is on the spiritual level, on the level of the psyche, or on the level of the plan for human development. Every species has its own blueprint, and this blueprint is of course important to the development of that species—what that species will develop into in the future is certainly determined by this blueprint.

Again, psychically and biologically, they are of value... They serve as a kind of cellular biological pattern, and as a psychic stimulus for consciousness.

What he is talking about here is still the gods. For a certain people, for its own people, this god of theirs is helpful to the bodies—the biological and psychic development—of the people within that people. Biologically, it is taken as a kind of cellular biological pattern; spiritually, it serves as a stimulus and a guide for the psyche.

Then he finished this stage. He told Rob to rest his hand, and to open a can of beer for our friend—that is, to get Jane a can of beer.

He went on:

The spiritual and the biological cannot be separated. Their purposes and realities meet.

He emphasizes once again: the spiritual and the biological cannot be separated. Why cannot they be separated? He has been explaining this since the beginning of this session—those underlying units of consciousness are one. The units of consciousness go upward to atoms and molecules, then upward to cells, then upward to the human being above the cells, the consciousness above the human being, and above consciousness the unconscious and subconscious and so on, and even the spiritual awareness produced by the human being. All of these are built from the underlying units of consciousness. From the point of view of the units of consciousness, they are all just different gestalts of the units of consciousness, different forms of organization. So at the bottom they are connected and are one. It is from this angle that he speaks—the biological nature of our physical body and our spirituality are in essence one, both just different manifestations of the units of consciousness. So they are one, and you cannot separate them—because their purposes and realities have met together; their purposes are the same.

He said, "Wait for us a moment," and then paused for quite a long time.

After pausing for a very long time, he said: About this point, later in this book I will explain more. For now, let me just mention it briefly.

He was actually thinking: How should I put it? If I speak about it, I will explain it in more detail later; if I do not speak about it, this matter cannot be bypassed. So he just said it briefly.

Any gods that appear among you must always emerge from your times... while at the same time representing a concept and idea that must transcend your times and enter into the future, strong enough as a psychic stimulus to bring about future changes.

Why must they emerge from our times? Because they are a reflection of the collective consciousness of our present era. And at the same time, they must also be a concept and idea about the future, transcending your present era—this god must fit this characteristic, and must also be strong enough to stimulate your psyche, to make you change in that direction. You follow this god, and following means you want to become like him; at the same time he can embody the collective beliefs of our present era. This is what he wants to emphasize.

In historical terms, when man was in the process of adopting a necessary artificial separation of himself from the rest of nature, when he had to be assured of his ability to do so... he needed a religion that would affirm his abilities.

Simply put, when man wanted to adopt a development of ego consciousness, he had to separate himself from nature. For ego consciousness to develop, separation is necessary—so-called ego consciousness means the self has a boundary and an outline: I am I, nature is nature, the environment is the environment. Corresponding to this concept is the concept of oneness—we are one with nature, all things are one, we have no boundaries, our consciousness is connected together. That is a state we seek to reach through spiritual practice, or a state that humanity wants to reach in the future. We actually came from that state as well, but later humanity chose to develop ego consciousness. And the development of this ego consciousness absolutely requires separation from nature.

When it separates from nature, when it goes to transform nature—man will conquer heaven—when it goes to create nature, it needs a kind of affirmation. This affirmation comes through religion, through the god in their religion, as an affirmation of one's own abilities. If I am going to struggle with heaven and earth, then I need authorization—I must prove that I am the child of Heaven, that I am the Son of Heaven, or that I am the favored child of Heaven, or something of that sort, or that I am a descendant of the dragon, and that I have this ability in my very bones. He needs this affirmation. At this time this god must appear. Why does religion arise? It is precisely because of this. If at this time there were no affirmation and blessing from a god, man would not dare to go forward with it.

So we know why faith is so important, and why people need faith—it is because of this time.

In ancient times, the male and female tendencies became psychologically estranged... Their differences were exaggerated. The idea of the ancient mother-goddess became unconscious.

In this period when ego consciousness was forming, men and women seemed to become estranged in feeling. The concept of gender was strengthened, and the differences between men and women were exaggerated. The most ancient mother-goddess—he also spoke of this in the early sessions, and it was mentioned in Conversations with God as well, and very early in other literature—the earliest gods of humanity were all maternal, all female. The earliest ancient gods of humanity were all female, and later they all changed, all becoming male. Here he mentions that the ancient mother-goddess is that earliest female god of ancient times, and they all became male gods.

As for why, I think you can look at Conversations with God; in it he gives a very vivid example and explains very clearly how humanity went from a matriarchal society to a male society, from a matriarchal society to a patriarchal society, and that process is very interesting. I will not repeat it here; go take a look. What Seth says in this passage is actually that same passage.

Man deliberately forgot the great natural aggressiveness and thrust of birth.

Man forgot how great the natural impact was when he was born from a woman, how strong that thrust and aggressiveness was. I think female listeners, if they have given birth, if it was a natural birth, can probably understand what Seth means in this passage—that kind of impact, that sense of power brought by contractions and labor pains, basically surpasses what human beings can experience. But men deliberately chose to forget it.

How strong is that impact, exactly? We can make an analogy: if the pain a woman feels during natural childbirth—suppose the pain of breaking one rib is 1, then the pain of childbirth is breaking ten ribs at the same time. You can imagine what it feels like to have ten ribs broken at once, though of course you may never have had one broken. Foreign scientists did an experiment—they took male volunteers who said, many times I want to experience what my wife feels when giving birth—and they applied the pain of a woman's childbirth to the men through scientific methods³. Basically no man could endure it—before even reaching halfway, they had already reached the limit of male endurance.

So here Seth emphasizes again: when a woman gives birth, when a child is born, how powerful that natural impact is. Yet humanity chose to ignore and forget it. Does that not seem abnormal? Do not women all give birth this way? He will not emphasize that this is the power of nature, how great this power is; he does not emphasize it, and he chooses to deliberately forget it.

He took physical aggressiveness and strength as his prerogative.

He felt that only men have strength, only men have aggressiveness. In fact, compared with the strength and aggressiveness of a woman giving birth, male aggressiveness and strength are far inferior. Of course, the outward expression is certainly different.

Because in the needs of ego consciousness for concrete manipulation and environment, this came to represent their characteristics.

Men took strength as their own, made it into their own characteristic. He thinks women have no strength, but in fact is women's strength great? It is great. He uses this example to emphasize it.

When ego consciousness understood its deep oneness with the earth and all creatures... it could not at the same time develop those specialized abilities, and its own particular unique focus.

When ego consciousness understood that it has a deep oneness with the earth itself—ego consciousness at first wanted to separate from all things, but later when it realized that it is in fact one with all things—it could not at the same time develop those specialized abilities, nor maintain its own unique materialized focus.

For example, the growth of individual tribal cultures, and later of individual nations, could only come about through a sense of separation, a certain sense of alienation.

Later, the emergence of tribes and the birth of nations were all possible only because of this sense of alienation and separation. Without the sense of alienation and separation between humans and nature, tribes would not have been born, and nations would not have been born. We would have become a society of world unity, without tribes, without nations, without borders. But we humans chose to develop ego consciousness, chose separation from nature, chose the difference between oneself and others—the separation between self and self, the separation between tribe and tribe, the separation between nation and nation. Only after this did birth come about; this is a process of the development of human culture.

This is a necessity of development: if we did not want to develop the material world, we might not need this development of ego consciousness, nor this sense of separation; but if you want to develop the material world and achieve something in the material world, you need this sense of alienation, and you need this ego consciousness.

However, this also allowed for a diversity that could not have been achieved under its original conditions.

What it means is this: without the sprouting of this ego consciousness, without humanity's development of ego consciousness over these recent tens of millions of years (or tens of thousands of years, and the subsequent development of human civilization), this possibility of development would not have appeared on the track in which humanity had not developed ego consciousness. Only then could this world become so colorful and diverse, and only then could the development of human civilization become diversified, rather than single—like what Laozi envisioned, the concept of world unity in the Zhou dynasty or even earlier. Of course, later the Confucians always fantasized about returning to that state, returning to that world unity, including the community of shared future for mankind that China now proposes—actually they all mean the same thing, all wanting to achieve human community. But the division of nations—from tribes to the division of national cultures—also formed a possibility for the diversity of human civilization, and that is also good.

The Jewish god that seemed so regional finally destroyed the Roman Empire, and in so doing brought about a complete reorganization of earth's culture.

Originally the earth could have been unified, a world of unity, but because of the awakening of the self it led to the present situation of more than one hundred or two hundred small countries. It is somewhat like the Judaism of that time, which was a small local sect, but it defeated the Roman Empire that had unified Europe at the time—in the end it was directly overturned by a very small Judaism, including the Christianity that later derived from it. And before that it was all the Roman Empire. What he means is: a local, small, regionalized idea finally defeated a nationally unified, grand-unified idea—or a globally unified grand-unified idea—but this gave humanity or earth's culture a possibility of complete reorganization, with more changes and possibilities. Seth's standpoint is always one level higher than ours.

He said, wait for us a moment.

He went on:

Christ, as he is known historically, represented the psychic possibilities of mankind. His teachings and the church could be interpreted in many ways... They represented seeds that people could sow according to their desires.

Christ is an existence representing a kind of psychic possibility for humanity. Christ's church can be interpreted in many ways; we now have only this one way. Different ways, different ways of transmission, represent seeds that people can sow according to their desires.

Because of Christ, there was a cause and effect, and an industrial revolution. The male aspect of Christ is the aspect emphasized by modern Western civilization, while the rest of what he taught was buried and did not become the main line of Christian thought.

What it means is this: the birth of Christ led to the later Industrial Revolution in England, and to the information revolution and post-information age after the modern human Industrial Revolution—the era we are now in. Without the birth of Christ, none of this could have happened. So it is quite miraculous, is it not?

Christ represented a seed of humanity's future at that time—a kind of exchange of the human psyche; you could call it foresight or precognition. Humanity at that time was already full of precognition and foresight about the future; people wanted to live the kind of life we now want to live, and so from that time Christ was born. He was sowing seeds, and the seeds included the teachings he spread and so on. Beneath these seeds there would later be Christianity, later England, later the Industrial Revolution, later America. This whole series. He wants to tell you this: if Christ had not been born, none of this would exist.

But Christ's thought is not only this. The West wanted only this one aspect of Christ—the masculinized aspect, the industrialized aspect, the rationalized aspect, the intellectualized aspect, the aspect representing male strength. It did not want the other aspect.

And any religion, in the final analysis, is itself feminine. Many people ask why the majority of those who study body-mind-spirit are women. Actually, if you look at many of these explanations you will understand: spiritual things are often passive—that passivity is not negative passivity, but active passivity, what Daoism calls the state of doing nothing and yet nothing left undone. What does that mean? It means it pays more attention to those things that our modern society considers useless, and does not emphasize practicality; yet what it emphasizes is indeed the most practical thing, the most basic and most fundamental thing—the human psyche, the spirit, these most fundamental things. But from the point of view of the material world, these things seem useless. Men tend to do useful things, while women seem inclined to do those useless things—such as beauty, feeling, atmosphere, emotion, love, and so on; they consider these very important. Men think that whatever is useful is what matters.

So these teachings, the various religions, are by nature all somewhat feminine. If you were to divide religions by gender, religion is actually feminine—because what it emphasizes is that in this passive state, you do those seemingly non-active things, and then you actually solve the most fundamental problems. The masculine is superficial, using its own power and actions to do things it considers useful, effective, actually capable of changing things—it thinks only that is effective.

So what he is saying here is this: the West emphasized the masculine side, and hid away or made implicit the feminine side within Christianity. In fact, we all know that from the very beginning, whether in Catholicism or otherwise, the Virgin Mary was very important; but later it became the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the Virgin Mother was no longer mentioned.

For example, the church ignored the substantive birth of Christ.

Why do we say the church ignored the feminine side and only emphasized the masculine side? Because it ignored the matter of Christ's birth. How did it ignore it?

And made his mother into a pure virgin.

Christ's mother was a virgin, and a virgin gave birth to a child. This is one of Christianity's claims. That refers to the fact that human consciousness would have a long period of neglect—of its relationship with nature and its feminine aspect. During that period, humanity neglected this thing.

It did not acknowledge the existence of the normal woman. What is a normal woman? A woman, of course, may need to have relations in order to bear a child, but it did not acknowledge the existence of this normal woman. It portrayed her as a virgin, and thus it ignored the essential feminine, or the real side of womanhood—it held that only this virgin was the representative of woman, the representative of the perfect woman. If a woman at that time had her own sexual desire, her own longings, and if she could not preserve her virginity, then that woman was bad, morally corrupt, impure. That was the attitude of men toward women in that period—they did not dare to face women squarely, did not dare to acknowledge women squarely, and used their own methods to give women a special kind of treatment.

He says: I am now speaking of mainstream Western civilization. He deliberately emphasizes—I am not talking about the East right now, what I am talking about is your Western affairs—so rebellion would produce misunderstanding.

The Father would be acknowledged, while the Earth Mother would be forgotten.

The Heavenly Father was acceptable, but the Earth Mother was not. The Heavenly Father was important, the Earth Mother did not matter—just find any virgin, plant the seed of the Heavenly Father, and she could give birth to a divine child. That is what he means.

So there would be feudal lords, but no female prophets.

He is referring to Western society. In the East, although it was rare, there was after all one female emperor, Wu Zetian, right. The West also had some, but by the later period there were none; in the early period there were still some, but in the later period you basically could not see any. Of course, he is not talking about the Queen of England or the queens of many Western countries today—what he is talking about is the treatment of women in society as a whole. Even during the period of the Queen of England, women were not really valued. You say it was because she was queen—just look through the history yourself: even during the period of the Queen of England, whether it was the time of Elizabeth I or Queen Victoria, those were the golden ages of Britain, yet at that time, you know, women in Britain still had no status. Although she herself was a queen, she did not give women rights or status. It is very subtle, just that subtle. She was different from Wu Zetian; when Wu Zetian became empress she liberated women⁴ and gave women great rights—women could take the imperial examinations, women could hold office, women could do things men could do. But later that also failed.

People would believe that, as a separate species, he did indeed dominate the earth, because natural endowment gave the earth to him.

Humanity wanted to believe of itself that, as a group separate from nature—the so-called separate group, meaning a group separate from nature and all other things. Because of the development of ego consciousness, it became separated. Then he was convinced that he was God's appointed chosen one, come to rule the earth, because natural endowment gave him this right, the divine right of natural endowment.

Thus the rising ego consciousness gained religious justification for its desire to dominate and control. Ego consciousness at this time was in a period of rapid development, so it wanted to dominate and control religion; it could not let religion control it. Because religion, as I just said, is by nature feminine, and ego consciousness would not permit that. It wanted to display the masculine side, the aggressive side, the side of power. So the pope became the personification of natural endowment, and the pope could only be male—there could be no female pope. If you look carefully at the history of religion, you will know this.

But that God had indeed already become different from the old Jewish Yahweh. Historically speaking, Christ had already changed that concept a great deal. So at least the Heavenly Father was no longer as capricious as Yahweh. Yahweh was the earliest view of Judaism, and later Christianity also became different from Judaism. So it changed, the concept changed as well, and became more stable. What does it mean that Yahweh was capricious? Do you remember how the great flood came about? Was it not because God became angry? So at that time God still frequently punished humanity—capricious—that is what he means. He says that after Christ it was no longer mentioned; Christ would not do things to punish humanity, and was very stable.

Some compassionate thoughts finally emerged.

Seth's use of words is also very interesting: some compassionate thoughts, not absolute compassionate thoughts, not complete compassionate thoughts—some compassionate thoughts. Why? Because Christianity still had its cruel side. If you understand the history of Christianity's development, you will know that it was not truly benevolent; it had its cruel side.

The growing ego consciousness could no longer ruthlessly crush nature. That is to say, at that time ego consciousness was rising, and at this point it could not madly, as its own development might have wished, madly crush nature. It began to have a certain reverence for nature. Why? Because the appearance of this Jesus led to such a stable state, a relatively stable state with nature, unlike Yahweh, who at any moment would flood the whole earth, at any moment would destroy humanity, and so on.

On the other hand, holy wars and ignorance would keep the population from increasing.

He is referring to the period of the church, the Middle Ages, when there was constant fighting—holy wars, always holy wars, the Crusades, and so on. And ignorance, which kept the population from increasing. Humanity in that period—the Middle Ages—basically did not increase in population; for several centuries the population did not increase much. Because of years of war and the spread of various plagues, harsh living conditions, many deaths from illness, and very high infant mortality, there were especially many deaths. So during those several hundred years, in Europe—I am talking about Western history, Western civilization—during that time Western civilization was indeed stagnant. If you understand the development of the Western Middle Ages, you will roughly know that those several hundred years were like a standstill, in a state of darkness, chaos, dullness, and oppression; civilization did not develop, population did not increase, and there was war year after year.

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church still retained a religious concept, and a treasure house of concepts.

The Roman Church still had a treasure house of concepts; the religious concepts still existed, as a storehouse of possibilities from which humanity could draw. Religion still contained many treasure houses, and many good conceptual things that could be taken and used. So religious concepts were used as a much-needed social organization, and many monks found ways to secretly preserve old manuscripts and knowledge.

That is to say, within those religions—did we not just discuss why religion came to exist? Because in the process of the development of human consciousness, it was a process that needed religion. But later religion was changed, became masculinized, became something serving the society and the ruling class of the time, so it was no longer the original religion. And at this time, many monks began to preserve some ancient manuscripts and knowledge. Because later religion changed a great deal, but they knew that those ancient things were the true wisdom, and were helpful to human development, so they preserved them all.

Thus those who mainly survived were those allied with religious principles.

That is to say, those who survived were those allied with religious principles, and those who brought about communities and protected offspring—those people. He is referring to that period of the Middle Ages, the period of holy wars, when the population did not increase, but the people who survived were those who obtained that knowledge, wisdom, and nourishment from the most ancient religions, were able to survive, and then preserved it, forming the concept of community, and then through the concept of community ensured the continuation of their descendants.

So even now in European and American countries, the concept of community is very strongly recognized, and their communities are centered on the church. Within a community there will certainly be a church, and not just one church—now there is at least one church. So this concept of community was one of the main reasons Western civilization was later able to continue. Without the transmission of this ancient religion, without the later formation of this community civilization, perhaps their descendants would not necessarily have been able to continue, and it would have become endless warfare year after year, holy wars without end.

Thus the concepts of the psyche and religion, despite their many flaws, were used as a method of racial organization. In terms of evolution, their importance was far greater than people have recognized.

He says that the concepts of religion and the psyche, although they have many flaws—the flaws were discussed earlier—nevertheless, as a method of organizing the development of our race, they still have an importance far greater than what we humans have recognized. He also discussed earlier that without these, perhaps Western civilization could not even have continued later. So it has its positive side; of course it has many flaws, and we must view it correctly, and cannot deny it entirely.

From the beginning, religious concepts held the tribes together.

From early on, religious concepts were able to hold the tribes together. Look at the earliest discoveries of human civilization—do they not all have religious activities, sacrifices and such ritual activities, present in the very earliest periods of civilization? So it was precisely because of religion that these tribes were held together. Why? Because they had a common belief; they believed in the same god. Because these tribes all believed in the same god, they would not fight one another to the death. Although the tribes were different, and there were conflicts, on major issues they were in agreement, and so these tribes were able to remain together.

Because there were tribes, social structures could be provided, and the early social structures of human civilization could form, which ensured the survival of the body. Without social structures, if humanity still lived in the manner of animals in remote antiquity, then humanity would not necessarily have developed to where it is today. It was precisely because society existed that the continuation of the human race was possible, and protection was provided for the possible survival of offspring. With tribes, you know that in those days when a child was born, everyone cared for it collectively—we discussed this before when talking about the living conditions of early humans: a woman, after giving birth, would rest for a period, then go out hunting, and the child would be handed over to other women who were pregnant and could not go out hunting to care for, or to those women who stayed home caring for children. She would care for all the children of the entire tribe, and only then could the other women and men go out hunting together, and only then would there be enough food, and only then could humanity survive and continue.

So you cannot simply say that religion is bad.

Take a break. If you prefer, you may also end the session.

He did not want to end it yet; he just said to rest. So at 11:55, Jane said that the material about Christ being buried, and the esoteric, always-hidden teachings involved in mainstream Christian thought, and the Essenes—the Essenes were a group of people, one of the four important Jewish sects living in the Holy Land in the early first century CE⁵. In Seth Speaks, Chapters 21 and 22, he discussed this issue, that is, early Judaism. Jane also said that he may have read speculative articles concerning the secret teachings of Christ and the Essenes, that is, about the four major branches of early Judaism—Judaism in its early period had four branches, and he may have read some speculative articles about them.

And we thought it very likely that many of the secret teachings had been attributed to Christ. They speculated that at that time many of the secret church's teachings were later given to Christ, and what Christ later transmitted was all from the secret church of the Essenes, one of the four ancient branches of Judaism, and this church was passed on to Christ—that was their speculation.

We wondered, however, whether Seth was speaking of that portion of Christian philosophy that was truly buried, the portion quite unknown. I almost always try not to interrupt Seth's dictation with questions, but now I wish I had asked Seth about that point.

You see, whenever the two of them touch on issues of Christianity, as Westerners, they are extremely interested. Actually, after hearing that passage, we might just let it pass, and not really want to ask any questions—just listen and be done with it. But they are different. So you can see that the cultural differences between East and West are very great. The two of them were very interested in this matter, and very much wanted to delve into it—what exactly were those hidden things in Christianity that you spoke of.

Jane and I also liked this concept, and wanted to know that from the earliest times, religious forces had always played a role in human development. This seemed a very reasonable idea, and once Seth brought it up, it seemed extremely obvious. He first said that the importance of religion in the development of human civilization is undeniable, but it had never seemed as obvious as after Seth brought it up. It was as if, without the existence of religion, humanity might not even have been able to continue. And we thought Christianity was important, or religion was important, but not important to this degree. In Seth's words, because without religion there would be no tribes, without tribes there would be no society, and without human society there would be no subsequent human development. That is Seth's view. So they would think, oh, so Seth says religion is this important—so this overturned their Western understanding of religion.

Seth continued—the following is again Seth speaking:

Understand that we are now emphasizing your Western civilization.

He emphasizes again—remember, Seth—he says I am emphasizing again, what I am talking about now is your Western civilization; I am not talking about Eastern civilization. Eastern civilization is another matter entirely; what I am talking about now is Western civilization.

He went on to say, for example, that American democracy today arose directly from the birth of Protestantism and a new kind of adventure.

America—he is now referring to the fact that these two people are in America, Rob and Jane are both Americans—your American democracy arose from the birth of Protestantism. How was Protestantism born? It was by a man named Martin Luther. This Martin Luther is not the later American civil rights fighter Martin Luther King, not that Martin Luther King; it was a Martin Luther who in the 14th to 15th century gave birth anew to Protestantism; he was a German theologian⁶. He was as responsible for the birth of America as George Washington.

To put it simply, what happened was this: at that time in Germany, in his understanding of Christianity, he reinterpreted some of Christianity, and he may have restored it to something more original and purer, and reorganized some of the things of the church at that time. In popular terms, it was a breath of fresh air. So he restored Christianity to a relatively pure state. And at this time, a kind of Protestantism was formed. This Protestantism actually had many conflicts with the old church. And in England—or mainly England and Europe—many people who believed in this new Protestantism became incompatible with the old church, and also inconsistent with the society of the time.

So these people could not endure the idea that all people are born equal, yet still had to live in a strongly class-based society. Because at that time the whole of Europe was a class society, a monarchy, with aristocrats—dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, barons⁷, divided into these ranks, and above the dukes was the king. So these Puritans could not stand this class system. They later went exploring—he says it was a kind of adventure, arising from a kind of adventure—and they later came to the Americas to explore. They took the Mayflower and came to the American continent, landing at a place called Plymouth near what is now Rhode Island. Before landing they drew up the Mayflower Compact and so on; you can find this history if you look through American history.

So what he means is that these Puritans came to America all because that man named Martin Luther, in the 14th to 15th century, translated or reorganized some of the doctrines of Christianity, and these people, influenced by this, gave birth to this new Protestantism—we also call them Puritans, or later called Protestantism, new Christianity—and only then did they have the motivation for this adventure, and only then did they want to leave the environment of Europe at that time and come to the American continent to found a new country. At that time it was not yet called a country; they were still subordinate to Britain. Some places belonged to Britain, some to France, some to Spain—at that time the American continent was controlled by three major countries. Yes, that is roughly how it was. We will not repeat this, because it is something related to Western history and the development of Western civilization.

So at this point Seth says that Luther's role was actually as great as George Washington's. What is he really trying to say? He is saying that without religion, perhaps even America would not exist—that is what he means.

Other democratic societies had existed in the past, but within them, democracy was still established upon a religious premise.

He says that in other historical periods there were also democratic societies, but these democratic societies were built upon a religious foundation. And the remarkable thing about America is that it was established by these Puritans, but they separated religion from the state system. It is not a country founded on religion—this is very subtle. Although it was founded by these Puritans, and even now perhaps 70 percent of Americans still believe in Christianity, it does not permit politics or the state system to be combined with the church and religion. It is not a country where church and state are united; it is a country where church and state are separated. Although its religious foundation is extremely deep, it is indeed a country of separation of church and state—this is its greatest difference from those democratic countries in history.

Although those democracies were also expressed in different ways, as in the Greek city-states. In the sixth and fifth centuries BC, in the ancient Greek city-states, at that time there was something similar to democracy; at that time there were councils of elders or something similar to a parliamentary system, a kind of democratic social system similar to modern civilization.

Yes, but it was built upon a religious system; the members of those councils of elders were all venerable elders of religion.

And the Holy Roman Empire was unified under a religious concept.

The Roman Empire also unified a civilization under religious unity.

And the true brotherhood of man can only be achieved by allowing the free expression of human thought under the banner of cooperation.

He says the true brotherhood of man—that is the English word "brotherhood," brotherhood—that is, humanity's true deep fraternal affection that transcends race, civilization, and culture. Such a friendship must be built upon the foundation of the free expression of thought. What he means is that it cannot be built upon the kind of thought-imprisonment divided by each religion; that way it is impossible to realize the unity of humanity. If we want to realize the unity of humanity, to realize this thing called human brotherhood—or call it humanhood, it does not matter—that is, human affection, human fraternal affection, it must be realized through the free expression of thought. Do you understand this? This is necessary. You cannot use religion to force people by saying: your religion is like this, and your viewpoint is not allowed in our society because it does not conform to our religion. That will not work. You must allow the free expression of human thought, and only then can a society of world unity be built.

And only under such a condition can it lead to human achievement.

Only after this free expression of thought transcends the boundaries of religion, region, culture, and country can humanity achieve greater accomplishments in its development.

Along with the development of consciousness that was latent for you from the beginning.

At that time, the potential blueprint for human development had actually long been latent within our consciousness. But it needed such external conditions before it could develop. In other words, if human civilization wants to enter the next stage, to enter a higher level of development, a higher stage of civilizational development, it must meet such a premise. Its latency does not mean it will necessarily develop; when external conditions are not present, it cannot develop either. So what this passage means is this: only when the free expression of thought transcends all religions, countries, and cultures can human society begin a new path of development for its own original potential.

I tell you again that so-called evolution is intimately connected with religion.

I tell you, religion and evolution are intimately connected.

The further development of your concepts will lead to the greater activation of that portion of the brain that is now hardly used.

Historically speaking, religion and evolution are connected. Then your next step of development will transcend religion, and at that time, those portions of your brain that have not been used can begin to be activated.

And these in turn will trigger expansion in both psychic and biological terms.

We will experience expansion in both the spiritual and the physical. Whether in the expansion of our inner senses or the expansion of the dimensions of our consciousness, we can all experience great expansion. This is what he—I tell you again—so this passage is a prediction of the future, and a general indication of the direction for human development.

The growth of concepts in spatial terms is a prerequisite. People on one side of the earth must know what people on the other side are thinking.

What does he mean? He says that the growth of our concepts in space is a prerequisite. A prerequisite for what? It is what he said earlier—one of the prerequisites for humanity's further development into the next stage. What does the growth of concepts in space mean? It means that within the space of the existing three-dimensional physical world, we must all transcend the limitations and restrictions of space. In other words, we cannot be like humanity in remote antiquity, or like humanity in earlier times, where a certain region had a certain concept, a certain region formed a certain culture, and another region was spatially isolated from it, or had spatial distance from it, which would cause each region to have its own culture, and the concepts of one place would have no influence on another place.

What he means is that if human civilization wants to develop to the next step, it must break through this spatial limitation; a concept should be able to grow rapidly across the entire domain of the earth—or across the entire spatial domain of the earth—and this is the premise for human civilization to enter the next stage. In other words, the informatization, the internet, including spatial transmission, space networks, and so on that we are developing today, which place the entire earth under a common network coverage—this is a prerequisite for human civilization to have developed to today, to have reached this turning point in time; it is already in place. Without this, it would not be sufficient to realize it.

Previously, through television and radio broadcasting, we had already achieved a partial unification of concepts, but the internet is even more powerful. Because television and radio are not interactive; they are not reciprocal; they transmit in one direction only, whereas the internet is interactive, connecting with every individual. So that is what he means. So people on one side of the earth—that is, people in one place on the earth—must know what people in another place are thinking and doing; this is the concept of the global village.

But all of this must be premised upon the manipulation of space. And the religious impetus has always been to stimulate people's curiosity about space.

His point is that we all have to be able to cross space. And religion played a facilitating role in this, because in order to spread his religion, he certainly wanted to cross this space, so religion served as the inducement here. I am not sure about this, but later I felt that religion's role here may not actually be that great. That is, with the development of the internet, whether in its early or later stages, including now, religion has not been the main inducement.

All right, let us continue:

Many species sharing your world have within themselves latent, and even now developing, abilities of their own.

That is, the other species sharing this world with us have their own inner latent, and even now developing, abilities. They have their own potentials, and they are developing abilities.

Thus, man and animal will meet again upon the earth, with old understandings, but in a new situation.

This sentence is very meaningful, very profound. That is, early humans learned from animals, but later humans and animals separated, and humans no longer had direct contact with animals. Before, they learned from each other as if they were one species. So those other species are also developing their own latent abilities and abilities that are still developing. And man and animal, with old understandings - that is, in ancient times, from 50 to 30 million years ago, they communicated with each other and were connected to each other. Under the impetus of this old connection, they meet again upon the earth. In between, they were cut off - during this middle period they were cut off. How were they cut off? Because the development of human ego consciousness caused its separation from all things and from other animals. But now, after humans have expanded into a new civilization, after humans have formed a community of their own, that ego consciousness gradually recedes, and its sense of identification with nature rises again. At this time, there will be a new connection between it and animals. That is what he means.

There are no closed systems, and in biological terms, each species knows what the other species is doing.

There are no closed systems. Animals also know what humans are doing, and humans may not necessarily know what animals are doing, but they also know some of it.

And their position in the overall plan.

They all know, within the great material world of the entire earth, within the entire environment of the earth, the position, role, and significance of each species, and they all roughly know it. That is what each of them chose when they formed this overall plan, and it is also determined by their respective consciousnesses.

All of earth's inhabitants that you might consider beneath humanity know of you to some extent.

That is, these living beings that you consider lower than you, whether snails, ants, or cattle, sheep, pigs, and dogs, you think they are all lower than us, and he says they also know of the existence of humans, to some extent - the degree of this awareness varies.

A probable man.

Interesting - a probable man - that is, a new species, and he used the term "a probable man" - now emerging.

But he is also connected with his entire natural environment, in which cooperation is a main force. Whether or not you know it, you are cooperating with nature, because you are a part of nature.

He says that from the very beginning, when humans separated themselves from nature, up to now, humans must once again walk back into the process of identifying themselves as part of nature. And in this new understanding - actually it is not a new understanding, it is an old understanding, this cannot be called a new understanding. We have basically gone around in a circle and come back, but this circle was not in vain. We have been strengthened in the development of ego consciousness, and we have also been strengthened in the development of science and technology. After going around this circle, with new science and technology and new human understanding, at this very moment, when we once again identify ourselves as one with nature, when we are connected with all things, a new kind of human - in quotation marks - a new kind of human is born.

How is it born? What are its characteristics? How is this new kind of human different from the old kind of human? This new kind of human emphasizes cooperation, emphasizes cooperation with all things, cooperation with nature, not only cooperation between people, but cooperation between humans and other species. So whether or not you know this, you are cooperating with nature, because you are a part of nature. So when humans realize this, it is as if a new human species comes into being - do not imagine that a new human species would grow six hands or four eyes; it is not like that. It is still the present human, only his consciousness has changed. When his consciousness changes, he activates those future abilities latent within human consciousness that humans were supposed to develop, a progress based on the civilization of the future, the birth of a new civilization. That is what it means.

So he says a probable man is now emerging, and we are these probable people. We still need to awaken more probable people, to replace competition with cooperation. This is what we should spread and advocate, so as to help all of humanity enter the next period of civilization, rather than the present human civilization based mainly on competition.

Then Seth said the dictation was over, and this part was finished. After that he transmitted some other material, and then he ended.

Then below there is this note: Who is Martin Luther? A German theologian, translator of the Bible, from 1483 to 1546. When he was young he was a priest, but he finally broke away from Catholicism and became a leader of the Protestant Reformation in Germany⁸, and he became the founder of German Protestantism.

As for this appendix part, I will not go into it for now. Let me briefly introduce it. This appendix is still very interesting, and I will go through it quickly. I will not explain the specifics, because the content is very extensive, but very important.

This is Appendix 8. Appendix 8, I suggest you all read it carefully. I will not expand on it here, because this Appendix 8 is actually about material from The Early Sessions - let me see, this is April 25, 1964, Session 45 of The Early Sessions, that is, Volume 2 of The Early Sessions, and Volume 2 begins with Session 43⁹ - he discussed nine inner senses, and then he discussed the value climate of psychological reality.

What is the value climate of psychological reality? You can slowly look into this. Let me say one simple thing: it is a medium in which all realities exist, that is, the medium in which our three-dimensional world exists. I just mentioned the space-time continuum. Space-time can be a medium of our three-dimensional world, and the existence of anything requires a medium. So where do our thoughts exist? Where do our ideas exist? Where does our consciousness exist? It is certainly not a three-dimensional world, right? The place where you dream is not a three-dimensional world, and your thoughts are not a three-dimensional world, and the spirit, the psyche, and your soul certainly do not exist in the three-dimensional world. Where do they exist? The thing in which they exist, that medium, is the value climate of psychological reality.

This name is very awkward. Seth made up a term out of nowhere. Actually, I guess he did not know what word to use to express it, so he simply coined this term. He also compared it to an ocean in which all consciousness exists - all consciousness exists, all levels of consciousness, from the smallest units of consciousness, up to the consciousness of atoms formed by units of consciousness, the consciousness of atoms, the consciousness of molecules, the consciousness of cells, tissues and organs, human consciousness, higher levels of consciousness - all, all consciousness exists in an ocean, that is, a medium.

Why do I not expand on this? Of course, I suggest you go look at it, because this is material from The Early Sessions. As for The Early Sessions, after I have finished introducing all these official books, I will separately teach The Early Sessions. The difficulty of The Early Sessions is very high, and it is not suitable for ordinary people in general. I will teach it at the appropriate time, because its nine volumes are also very extensive, and the difficulty is very deep. If you look at this session, you can roughly get a sense of the difficulty. This Session 45 is not considered high in overall difficulty; it is quite ordinary, but just look at the content of this session - he only excerpted a small passage from Session 45 - and you can roughly know where the difficulty lies. This is his first appendix.

Regarding this, he actually wanted to explain the part he discussed earlier in Session 690, the part about the medium, the thing in which all consciousness exists.

What does the other appendix discuss? It discusses that in one of Jane's ESP class sessions, a student asked a question. The question was: Would Seth comment on the division between men and women as we understand it¹⁰. Seth discussed it - because Session 690 also discussed this distinction and separation between male and female, that is, why they separated in human history, and he was discussing that. So here Seth expanded on a part of it in more detail, which is to say he expanded and discussed that content further, and it is also very interesting. But I do not want to discuss it, because the length would be too long.

From what angle does he discuss male and female? He emphasizes humanity, not male and female, and so on. This concept was actually explained more thoroughly in The Nature of the Psyche, but when he said this, The Nature of the Psyche had not yet been written. So he basically expanded that part here. If you have already studied it - many of us have already studied The Nature of the Psyche - then you do not need to pay too much attention to this. If you are interested, you can see him discuss it from a different angle, which is quite interesting.

The most interesting part in the middle is that he says you all think I am male - that is, you regard me, regard Seth, as a symbol of great logical thinking. He says that is actually not so; it is your misunderstanding. Then after saying this, he says listen. He says you think Seth is male-oriented, but he says that is actually not so; he says listen. And then, at that moment, Jane really did sing a Sumari song.

Sumari is another form of expression of Jane's in a trance state, a unique kind of language. That language does not seem to be any current human language, not any particular language. And then only Jane knows what it means; it is an intuitive knowing. She would sing it, and she sang several passages, and after singing, Seth said: You see, you always think I am here to explain principles, explain theories, explain things, and you always regard me as having a male way of thinking. He says that is actually not so; I can express myself to you through singing. He says although you do not know what I am singing, and you do not understand my words - because I deliberately made it so you cannot understand - you could not understand the meaning of Sumari anyway. But through these Sumari songs, you can also hear things beyond the words.

This is very interesting, and this is a characteristic of female expression. Female expression is non-logical, primarily emotional, often expressed through singing and dancing, and so on. That is what he means.

He says you heard, and you did not hear, but your inner selves listened, and they heard. He says the Sumari passage I just had Jane sing, you heard it, but you heard nothing, because you could not understand it at all. But your inner self heard it. What was just given to you - that is, the Sumari Jane just sang - was not given to you in precise English, in intellectual terms, in paragraphs and sentences, but what was given to you brought you into contact with your own emotions. Because that song had feeling, had emotion, and those emotions you perceived and those you hid from one another, at the bottom they were not connected, and I brought them out for you. And I will not give you any more rational clues. He says I will not explain further. He says my singing of this Sumari song was to connect you all emotionally. If I say more, it will become rational again, so I will not say more; go feel it.

What does this whole appendix mean? What Seth wants to tell you is this: there is not that great a difference between male and female. You are all human. First talk about humanity, then talk about male and female. Do not emphasize the difference between male and female to such a great extent. Only at the end does he state again: Do not regard me as a person who is mainly male, rational, and logical in thinking. He says I have an emotional side, but my emotional side can only be felt by you ESP class students on the spot - when Jane was actually singing the Sumari song. In other words, these things cannot be written into books; they cannot be spread. Of course, now there may be audio and video recordings, but in that era, video and audio recording were not that developed, in the era of 1964. So now he can only spread the Seth material through this written form. But you must never understand Seth as only a male expression or a rational and logical expression. Not at all; he has a completely female side.

All right, we have finished Session 690. As for the two appendices, I suggest you look at them when you have time. Below is Teacher Xiyu's interpretation of this session, which is also very brilliant and can help everyone understand it more deeply. Teacher Xiyu will also give some examples, or interpret it from his own unique angle.

注释与核实

1. Source: Jane Roberts, The “Unknown” Reality, Volume One (https://www.crisrieder.org/thejourney/storage/2025/02/Seth_Jane_Roberts_The_Unknown_Reality_Vol.pdf) ↩

2. This claim could not be verified. ↩

3. According to Mike’s original words, it was “applying the pain of childbirth in women to men through scientific methods”; upon verification, it should be “the male labor pain simulator only uses abdominal electrical stimulation to produce superficial somatic pain, and cannot transfer or equivalently replicate the visceral pain in women caused mainly by uterine contractions during childbirth onto men.” (Source: Wang Meihua, “Where Is the ‘Pain Point’ in Promoting Labor Analgesia?” 2024, https://kpzg.people.com.cn/n1/2024/1213/c404214-40381131.html) ↩

4. According to Mike’s original words, it was “Wu Zetian becoming empress liberated women”; upon verification, it should be “Wu Zetian becoming empress did not liberate women; although some measures during her reign showed ‘female consciousness,’ she had no intention of fundamentally changing male superiority and female inferiority, and she reinforced the constraints on women by compiling textbooks on female virtue.” (Source: Shaanxi Normal University Women’s Research Center, “The 49th Gender Forum │ Professor Yu Gengzhe on the Rise and Fall of Wu Zetian and Changes in the Status of Women in the Tang Dynasty,” https://wsc.snnu.edu.cn/info/1033/1142.htm) ↩

5. Source: Yale Bible Study, The Philosophical Sects in First-Century Judaism (https://yalebiblestudy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Josephus-and-the-Sects-of-Judaism.pdf) ↩

6. This claim could not be verified. ↩

7. Source: UK Parliament, Medieval House of Lords (https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/medieval/) ↩

8. Source: HISTORY.com Editors, Martin Luther and the 95 Theses, 2009 (https://www.history.com/articles/martin-luther-and-the-95-theses) ↩

9. This claim could not be verified. ↩

10. This claim could not be verified. ↩