Mike's commentary · The "Unknown" Reality, Session 718

The "Reading 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 portions Mike read aloud).

Introduction

This chapter centers on an incident in which Jane received posthumous material from William James and Carl Jung. Seth explains that this was not communication with the deceased individuals themselves, but rather a tuning in to their "worldviews"; a worldview is an individual's focus of consciousness, or home station, which exists both in life and after death and can be perceived by those of a similar frequency. The unknown reality is unknown only because it is believed that it must remain hidden; exploring it requires confidence in the known reality. This chapter also discusses creative blueprints, the application to everyday dilemmas, and the quality of channeled material.

Key Points of This Chapter

• What Jane received was not William James or Jung themselves, but the worldviews they held after death.
• A worldview is an individual's focus of consciousness or base station; it can exist whether living or dead, and can be tuned into by those of similar frequency, with intention and resonance.
• The unknown reality is unknown only because people believe it must be hidden; exploring the unknown reality requires confidence in the known reality.
• Writers, artists, scientists, and inventors often tune into the worldviews of others or of those not yet born, translating them into works, inventions, or discoveries.
• When facing personal difficulties, one can temporarily set aside one's own worldview and tune into the experience of those who have solved similar challenges, in order to gain a new perspective.

Main Text

Worldviews and Creative Exercises: Communication with the Dead

Today we are looking at Session 718 in Volume 2 of The "Unknown" Reality. The title of this session is "Worldviews and Creativity, Communication with the Dead, and Concepts of Good and Evil in Relation to Dream Travel -- All Unofficial Information." This session began on Wednesday, November 9, 1974, at 9:50 p.m.

Rob noted that on Monday he had mailed 16 newly completed pen-and-ink drawings to Jane's publisher as illustrations. Interestingly, just as he was finishing the illustrations for Jane's first book on aspect psychology, she had already begun a second book, The Politics of the Psyche, as a sequel to the first. Now they had an even longer plan: to create 40 illustrations for Jane's poetry collection, The Soul and the Mortal Self. You can see that, beyond his usual work, Rob also had to illustrate these books for Jane.

The Deleted Session 717

The previous session was Session 716, and Session 717 was not included in this book. This session is extremely interesting -- Rob deleted it from The "Unknown" Reality because it was both a Seth session and not a Seth session; both a dictation and not a dictation.

Rob's notes say that when they began Monday's session, Jane told him she had woken up in the middle of the previous night with an insight about two exercise units that Seth would discuss. In Session 716, Seth had given two exercises -- Exercise 11 and Exercise 12 -- and these two exercises are very important; they are key to our learning to enter the unknown reality. But even as they prepared for this session, Jane felt that the two sets of material were right there beside her, yet the content did not come through. She had the insight, but the content did not come through.

Instead, something happened that left them confused and curious, and more than a little troubled. This is what happened in Session 717. However, after this session (718), when Rob was writing this book, they had already been reassured by later events, but at the time, he was genuinely upset.

In fact, Rob believed that Monday night's session was a very definite step in the further development of Jane's abilities. The strange, disturbing, yet challenging events of Session 717 seemed to involve several other factors.

First, it may simply have been the state of Jane's recent, unusual psychic receptivity. Lately Jane had been practicing alterations of her own state of consciousness. Second, there was Rob's long-standing interest in the American psychologist and philosopher William James (1842-1910).¹ William James² had written a book called The Varieties of Religious Experience,³ a classic work written during James's lifetime. The third reason was a letter that arrived the previous week from a Jungian psychologist, who had been inspired by Seth's material on Jung in Chapter 13 of The Seth Material.⁴ The fourth reason was that on Monday afternoon Jane had undergone a very thought-provoking experience -- in which she found herself experiencing the consciousness of an ordinary fly. From that tiny yet fascinating perspective -- the fly's perspective -- she knew she was climbing up an enormous blade of grass, exploring a fly's worldview. This adventure was clearly preparation for the developments in Session 717.

Of course there must have been other reasons as well, but Jane herself was not really very interested in James -- she had once read part of that book, but seemed rather uninterested; Rob, however, often reread passages from it. Still, the letter from the Jungian psychologist clearly provided the most direct impetus for the fly episode and Monday night's events. That person asked Seth to say more about Jung and his work. Rob thought this request was no accident -- it arrived at precisely the moment when Jane's abilities seemed to be maturing in the direction of receiving the worldviews of deceased people.

Just as they were half-jokingly wondering whether Seth would have any reaction, Jane suddenly told Rob that she was receiving material from William James.² She said that because of James's own persistent melancholy, he could understand people of the same disposition. Rob wondered inwardly: why James? Jane did not like this person either. The Jungian psychologist had not mentioned William James,² so why would Jane connect with a famous dead person?

I think it is very likely that their interest in James's work had some influence on Jane's newly developing abilities, but that still does not answer why he would make contact with a well-known American philosopher. Rob thought: what about Seth then? Now that contact had been made with James, would there be no more role for Seth from now on? It seemed they could only wait and see.

At 8:58 p.m. Jane said: "I am receiving James -- calling melancholy a type of soul." She said melancholy is a type of soul; there are many types of souls, and this is one of them. Her eyes were closed, and she said: "Now I have got a book, a paperback. I see the printed material. But it is very small, as if made of microfilm, and strangely enough, the whole thing is printed on gray paper. In my mind I see it really tiny." She saw the paperback in her mind.

James After Death: The Procession of Deities

The following is an excerpt from the material Rob recorded, concerning a portion of the consciousness of James after physical death. It is amazing -- let us take a look at the scene after James's death, transmitted through Jane.

Right before my eyes there was a procession of deities, all gods. I felt astonished, and watched quietly, watching a procession of deities march past. Each god and goddess was accompanied by a poet, each deity accompanied by a poet, and the poets sang that they had given voice to reason. Yet what they sang was clearly nonsense, which struck James as very strange. But as he listened, those nonsensical sounds turned into a philosophical dialogue.

Those words struck my soul. Then there was a strange mirror-like phenomenon -- because when I spoke the poets' words backward, to my reason they became perfectly sensible. The poets' words, if repeated backward, were very reasonable to James, while spoken forward they were strangely odd.

During a break, Jane said she had received the title of William James's² new book: The Varieties of Religious States. This differed from the book he had published during his lifetime by only one word -- one was "Experience," the other "States." Jane also felt that Seth was nearby, but he was like a bystander, not participating. She added that she felt James's material came from someone who very eagerly wanted to talk about something.

Rob said he did not say anything to Jane at the time, but he felt uneasy about material being transmitted by a famous deceased person. This indeed pointed to a difficulty for them -- they had always considered such manifestations rather suspect. It was not that mediums or others could not communicate with the dead, but in any case, for them, such displays involving famous people always seemed to carry an exclamation point: psychologically, it was no longer pure. When they connected with these famous psychologists, it always felt a little impure -- uncertain whether they had truly connected with them, or whether it was something projected from their own mental recognition of these people. So that night they did not feel good; they felt strange and awkward.

To make matters worse, after Jane finished the long James material, she immediately began receiving information from Jung. One James was not enough; then came Jung -- both celebrities, each more famous than the other. You see, besides transmitting the Seth material, she was also transmitting these well-known people who had once lived -- all of whom had left books behind in the world. Seth, by contrast, is a being who seems not to be in our world; although he lived through several centuries, he is far removed from our modern era, and there is no historical record to verify him. Rob had always wanted to verify Seth, to find out which pope Seth had been; he did a great deal of work but found nothing. You can see that Rob had always wanted to verify evidence of Jane's historical existence, but he found none, which instead gave him a certain peace of mind -- that Seth came from another dimensional space.

But now these famous people were repeatedly connecting with Jane, transmitting material through her, and Rob was getting restless. This was getting out of hand -- if this continued, could she connect with Washington too? Could she connect with Lincoln? Which other famous person could she connect with? Rob was starting to panic: what is going on here?

This time Jane was almost apologetic, feeling that she should not have recklessly contacted these people. Yet they still decided to proceed. Jane did not see any book by Jung, nor any visual material; the words simply came, carrying what she felt were Jung's emotional feelings. The material seemed endless, as much as one could want. When Jane stopped speaking -- she had had enough, and it was approaching midnight -- she added that Jung's material felt much livelier, with a great deal of vitality and energy, while William James² carried a certain melancholy mood. Jung was lively and energetic, seeming happy, excited, easily excitable. Yet both of them felt that Jung's words were not as thought-provoking as James's.

Jung: The Symbolism of Numbers

The following is a short excerpt from Jung's words:

Numbers have an emotional counterpart. Their symbols originally came from the same primal field that is forever identical with the "one," and the primal field felt that all other numbers first emerged from itself. The primal field recognized itself as God, and therefore all fractions flew out from the self-structure of its reality.

Actually, neither of them understood this passage. They did not know what Jung was talking about. This part will be expanded in detail in the later interpretation of the Seth material. Simply put, in his middle age Jung obtained a book called The Secret of the Golden Flower,⁵ also translated as The Secret of the Golden Flower.⁶ From this book, purportedly a secret Taoist text written by Lu Dongbin, he gained a major elevation -- a breakthrough in consciousness, a great development.

In his later years, Jung began studying mathematics again. Based on his own understanding, he then rewrote a new set of books on the secret of the golden flower -- almost entirely centered on mathematics and geometry. He reinterpreted the secret of the golden flower from this angle. This book has been published abroad, but it seems no one in China has translated it, and it is very difficult to translate. Jung is also most famous for writing a renowned book called The Red Book,⁷ and it is said he also wrote a Black Book,⁸ but no specific content has been seen.

Jane said she had an impression: Jung was very short and stocky, full of energy, and in a way almost like a wild youth, bursting out in too many directions at once. You see how he developed in multiple directions: he was Freud's student, then ultimately broke away to oppose Freud and founded his own school; in his later years he devoted himself to studying mathematics; he also studied Taoism; he himself was psychic, with precognitive abilities, remote viewing, and clairvoyance. Then in his later years he focused on studying mathematics, with deep attainments in mathematical research.

So you can understand why they did not understand Jung's passage about mathematics. What Jung was trying to say, very simply, is that numbers themselves have emotion; numbers are conscious. In simple terms, it is the "one" in "the Tao gives birth to one" -- what he is saying here is that the one and the Tao themselves have an identification with each other. So there is a primal field, and the two are one. If the Tao manifests in the human world, it can be represented by the image of "one," but "one" still cannot fully represent the Tao; it can only represent one primal field of it. But it can be sensed that all other numbers are generated from this one -- one gives birth to two, two gives birth to three, three gives birth to all things. He was actually trying to express the concept of the Tao giving birth to one, but he did not say it very clearly, and they did not quite understand it.

The Episode Itself Was an Exercise

Their guess at the time was: had Jane also been bursting out in too many directions at once? She had previously always refused to contact the dead in this way, and had not had much contact with these deceased celebrities. Both of them were quite uneasy -- Jane was uneasy, and Rob was uneasy. But as usual, even as they questioned their own reactions, they were still drawn in. The good thing about these two is this: when faced with strange things that cannot be explained, they do not reject them; they doubt, they question, but they still record them, daring to observe correctly without adding too much of their own judgment.

They were also aware of the humorous side of the situation -- since Jane had already been speaking for the deceased Seth for so many years, what harm would a few more do? Raising one is raising a flock; it makes no difference.

As they sat waiting for tonight's session, they wondered whether Seth would discuss what had happened Monday night. Because that night Seth had not come through, but he seemed to be right there, like a bystander watching Jane communicate with James and with Jung.

Jane spoke of a wonderful idea of her own: she believed that the James and Jung episodes themselves were an exercise for making the unknown reality known. Jane's intuition was always more accurate than Rob's. She said: my connecting with these two people was actually one of the exercises for this unknown reality -- just like the earlier exercises of becoming the consciousness of a fly, hearing sounds from a crystal, and the descriptions of personalities, all of which were very accurate. Those exercises are for us to explore the unknown reality, and these two deceased people transmitting their material was also an exercise in exploring the unknown reality.

So Rob's deletion of this session from the book was actually inappropriate; he should have included Session 717. Because this was actually a supplement to the previous exercise, or a way for Jane to personally experience: after her focus of consciousness shifted, what could she obtain?

Jane's previous focus of consciousness was on everyday, physical life -- that is fine; everyone has that. Her second focus of consciousness was aimed at Seth, and she could connect with Seth; she had been doing this for over a decade and was very skilled at it. What Seth meant was: what I am having you practice now is, by adjusting the direction in which your focus of consciousness moves, to bring those unknown things into your known awareness. Seth was actually watching this happen, letting Jane understand: you can not only connect with me; beyond everyday physical life, the shift of your focus of consciousness can also connect with the consciousness of other people who are no longer alive. You can enter those worlds that you think are unknown.

So this session was actually an exercise. Rob only looked at its content and felt it had little to do with the book, so he deleted it. In terms of content, it indeed had little relevance, but the event itself was truly interesting. Fortunately, Rob was smart enough to describe this event -- although he did not see the content of this session, the event was fully recorded.

Jane had already written some things in The Politics of the Psyche, discussing some of her views on this matter. Rob said: no matter what we learn from Seth tonight, we have reason to be certain that, in ordinary everyday terms, Jane was not directly dealing with two such famous people. Rather, she was involved in quite different and credible matters. Rob's intuition on this point was also correct.

What Jane elaborated in that book was this: she felt she was not communicating with the soul or the main body of consciousness of William James;² she was dealing with something else of his. She was not directly communicating with Jung either; she was also dealing with something else of Jung's. And both of these intuitions were correct -- you will see later how Seth explains it.

So you can see that in this process the two of them gained a great deal of confidence. Let me add a supplementary remark: in your own exploration of the unknown reality, this confidence is still necessary. Do not think that you know nothing and can do nothing, and then negate yourself into worthlessness. The intuition you should have, the inspiration you should have, the confidence you should have -- have them. For example, if you feel something is a certain way, you can tentatively believe it for now, or write it down.

Your Worldview Is Your Home Station

Let us first look at what Seth said about the content before this.

This step of the book deals with the various exercises. I hope that you will give yourselves a firsthand glimpse of your previously unknown reality.

Seth's statement here has already made the purpose clear -- starting from Step Five, I am having you do exercises, exercises dealing with how to go into those unknown realities. And that previous session (717) was also an exercise.

I have said, for example in Sessions 711 and 716, I have said it. Your normal focus of consciousness can be likened to your home station. The exercises given to you so far will gently lead you away from your attention to this home station, even while its structure is simultaneously strengthened by you.

Although it leads you away from your home station, your cognition and feeling for the structure of your home station are actually strengthened. I am not asking you to weaken it -- when you practice focusing on other realities, your ability to focus on your home station actually increases as well, and your perceptual ability becomes stronger.

You may also call this home station or local program your worldview.

This point is very important; you can give it a name: worldview. It is your view of this world. Your primary consciousness, your focus of consciousness, relative to the unknown reality -- our physical reality is, for you, a worldview. Basically we all hold a materialist worldview, living in this three-dimensional world; this is the case for most people.

Since it is through him that you perceive your reality, then he is your worldview. To some extent, he represents a personal focus of yours, through which you interpret the greater part of your experience.

From a certain angle, he is a focus of your consciousness -- a completely personal focus. You use this focus to look at the world; although the world appears to have many different facets, your view of it forms your own worldview, and through such a focus you form the greater part of your experience and views of this world.

As we mentioned earlier, in Session 715, when you begin to move away from that particular organization, when you move away from your present reality, strange things may begin to happen. You may be filled with wonder, excitement, and confusion, because strange things will happen; you may feel very pleasant or very terrified -- both are possible. According to your new perceptions, you may agree or disagree with your established worldview. At this point you have new perceptions, because other realities have entered your perceptual system, and you will, according to your new perceptions, agree or disagree with the old worldview you have already established.

In other words, the impact of the new unknown reality on your worldview is enormous. You may apply your old worldview to understand this new reality, or you can be a very free and transparent person, completely abandoning your old worldview and establishing a separate worldview for the unknown reality, without imposing your old worldview onto the new reality. This is up to you.

In this session, which is different from the usual ones, the framework of the session was used as a new exercise.

Session 717 is the deleted session. This was different from other sessions -- in other sessions, the content spoken by Seth became the content of the book, but in Session 717, the way the session was conducted, the structure of the session, the pattern of the session, became an exercise for this book and also a part of its content. Do not look at the content transmitted; look only at how Jane connected with those people's worldviews -- it was meant to serve as an example, in the best case, of what might happen when a person leaves his local worldview and tunes into another, previously quite different worldview.

Here you must first combine "worldview" with "radio station." When you see a worldview, it means your consciousness has already moved into an unknown reality.

What You Tune Into Is Not the Person, but the Program

You always form your own experience. Ruburt received the worldview of a known dead person. He did not communicate directly with William James.²

Seth confirms again: indeed, you did not communicate directly with William James;² you communicated with William James's² worldview. What is the difference between a worldview and the person? As we discussed earlier, a worldview is equivalent to your home station, equivalent to your view and cognition of this world. You have formed a set of your own cognitive systems, and this is not you yourself -- it can only be said that while you were alive, in certain reality spaces, you formed a unique cognition of the world. Did he not say earlier that your home station can be a worldview?

However, he was aware of looking out at the universe through James's worldview. Just as you can select a television program, Ruburt was now tuned into the view of reality held by James.

Just as you change a television program, and this program happens to be about James's view of the world after death. Ruburt happened to tune into such a program, and what he was watching was this program.

Because that view necessarily involved emotions, Ruburt felt some emotional contact, but only with those emotions themselves; he did not contact the person.

You must understand this: it was not contact with the emotions felt by the person; it was contact only with the emotions themselves.

Each person, in your terms, whether living or dead, has such a worldview. And that living picture exists beyond time and space; it can be perceived by others.

Whether you are alive or dead, your worldview can be perceived by others. It exists forever, vividly, in a trans-temporal or trans-spatial manner; whether later people or earlier people can all access it. This is amazing.

Each worldview exists at its own particular frequency, which can only be tuned into by those within roughly the same range.

The frequency must be tuned into by people of a similar frequency; otherwise you cannot possibly make contact with his worldview.

However, those frequencies themselves must also be properly adjusted before they can be brought into focus.

That frequency also underwent some adjustment; otherwise it could not be directly felt by your perceptual system. What he is saying is all very objective description.

And those adjustments must be accomplished with a certain intent and sympathy.

That is to say, the worldview of that deceased person exists at a particular frequency; if you want to connect with it, your frequency must be close to his -- if your frequency is too far from his, you cannot connect. In other words, if you fundamentally do not accept his worldview, you cannot possibly connect with him. At the same time, if you want to connect with him, the frequency of his original worldview must also undergo some adjustment before it can link with your frequency; otherwise you cannot connect with him either. So how can the frequency of that worldview be adjusted to a frequency you can capture? Mainly through a certain intent and sympathy -- this sympathy is an emotional link, involving emotion. Without this, it will not work.

For example, if you are basically opposed to this worldview, then you cannot possibly tune into such a worldview. Because you simply cannot make such appropriate adjustments.

Your frequency is so far from his, and you have no identification with him at all, let alone an emotional link, so it is impossible to adjust his frequency to one you can connect with.

Ruburt, for The Politics of the Psyche, had been working at alterations of consciousness, and was curious about the basic validity of religion.

Ruburt had been practicing alterations of consciousness because he wanted to write this book. He could not discuss the politics of the psyche without touching on the topic of religion -- religion is the part that has had the greatest influence on the human psyche. He had always wanted to study what effect religion actually has on people, and how it works.

He had been trying to use, alternately, intellectual and emotional knowledge, between the two kinds of knowledge.

He had been trying to integrate intellectual knowledge and emotional knowledge -- reconciling reason and feeling, unifying the two.

James was by no means a favorite author of his, yet Ruburt's interest, intent, and desire were close enough so that under certain conditions he could also experience the worldview held by James.

Because Jane had such an intent, desire, and interest in understanding the validity of religion, she had this possibility of contacting the frequency of James's worldview.

The Unknown Is Unknown Only Because You Believe It Must Be Hidden

The unknown reality is unknown only because you believe it must be hidden.

This sentence is very important. Why are some things unknown to human beings? It is because you believe they must be hidden. You think that when a person dies, nothing remains, and the thing is gone. You believe it has disappeared, so for you it becomes invisible, hidden.

Once that belief of yours is eliminated, other equally valid views of reality that are not much different can appear in your consciousness, and worlds just as valid as your own world will also swim into your field of vision.

Those unknown worlds will also enter your world from the places that were originally hidden from you, or that you turned a blind eye to.

To do this, you must have confidence in yourself and in the framework of the reality you know.

You must have confidence in this present known reality. Otherwise you will be too afraid even to briefly give up your habitually organized view of your world. When you explore unknown reality, you must have enough confidence in your present world. Otherwise you will not dare to explore, for fear that when you come back this place will no longer be here -- then how could you explore? Your home base would be gone.

Even within life as you know it, if you feel unsafe or afraid, you cannot correctly see your family and your neighbors. If you are afraid, then your own fear will stand between yourself and others.

If you feel unsafe or afraid, you will not correctly see your family and your neighbors. Fear will stand between you and others, forming an enormous barrier. You will not dare let your gaze leave yourself for even a minute -- for example, you will not dare be kind to others, because you are afraid of being rejected. Seth has already explained this issue very thoroughly: if you want to explore, you must have confidence.

In the same way, if you are overly concerned about the nature of your own reality, and if you expect others to make your existence valid, you will not be able to successfully give up your own worldview, because you will feel too threatened.

If you cannot have a very firm view of your own existence in this physical world, in the present reality, and you must have others prove your existence -- proving your own existence through relationships with others, whether mother-child relationships, husband-wife relationships, colleague relationships, friend relationships, sibling relationships, and so on -- if you must prove the validity and effectiveness of your existence through these relationships, then you are in great danger. Because when you reach unknown reality, none of these things will be there. Nothing will be able to prove the legitimacy and effectiveness of your existence, and at that point you will be afraid.

The first thing you must do is to be without fear in your present reality, not dependent on the views or opinions of others, and have enough confidence in your own existence. Only when you achieve this, when you leave the present known reality to explore unknown reality, will that fear not appear. And once you have fear, within that unknown reality things that make you afraid will be conjured up -- whether demons, devils, hell, wild beasts, anything is possible. This is very interesting.

Or when you take practice journeys within the psyche, even if you move only slightly away from your own home station, you will still try to carry your familiar equipment with you, and interpret entirely new conditions of consciousness with your own worldview. Then you will carry your own set of assumptions into situations to which they may be entirely unsuited.

You may have mustered the courage to go exploring, but at this point you easily bring your old worldview -- your views of this present three-dimensional world, good and evil, good and bad, logic, right and wrong, morality, and so on -- into that reality. But that reality is completely different from the world you now live in. Not to mention that the concepts you hold may not even work in this reality, even if they do work here, they will not work in another reality. Yet because of your fear, you will still use your old worldview to interpret the new realities you explore. You will misinterpret things, saying, "Oh, this is what this is about, that is what that is about." Your judgments are all made according to the way that is most favorable to you in your present reality, and the starting point is still the viewpoint of the three-dimensional world.

Jung's Interlude: A Stimulus

Ruburt received James's worldview because their interests happened to coincide. A letter from a Jungian psychologist served as a stimulus, and that psychologist asked me -- Seth said in a very low, humorous voice -- to comment on Jung.

Seth was very humorous. Ruburt felt he had little in common with Jung, while he was secretly curious about James, mainly because he knew that James...

The Source of the Worldview Ruburt Received

Ruburt received James's worldview because their interests happened to coincide. A letter from a Jungian psychologist served as a stimulus. That psychologist asked me to comment on Jung. Ruburt felt he had little in common with Jung, while he was secretly curious about James, mainly because he knew that Joseph (Rob) liked one of James's books, so he was more curious about James's material, and had little interest in Jung.

It is entirely possible to tune in to any person's worldview, whether that person is alive or dead. Even the worldviews of those who, from your standpoint, have not yet been born, also exist. This is very interesting -- we can understand obtaining the worldviews of the living and the dead, but how can we obtain the worldview of someone not yet born? If you can understand the simultaneity of this world, that is, that past, present, and future exist simultaneously, then of course you can understand it. As for the explanation of this part, Teacher Xiyu will give you a detailed explanation in later sessions.

Ruburt's experience can only serve as one example of what is possible. He very correctly did not interpret the matter in popular terms -- that is, Ruburt did not use the so-called "linking with Seth" approach, such as "I have linked with William James" or "I have linked with Jung." Joseph (Rob) also did not assume that James himself was communicating in the ordinarily imagined way. The two of them were quite accurate in this judgment, and Joseph also recognized the excellence of that material.

James was not aware of the situation. In that direction, from that angle, James himself was also engaged in other adventures -- he was doing his own things in other times and spaces. What you explored was only his worldview.

The worldview Ruburt received had, in your terms, existed for at least nearly ten years. At that time it was 1974, and ten years earlier was 1964; and James had already died in 1910. So, fifty years after James's death, his worldview -- from our human time perspective -- came into existence (this is why Seth specifically used the premise "in your terms").

Why did it exist only then? Because at that time, still speaking from our human perspective, in James's mind -- playfully -- he thought of a book he could write. Fifty years after his death, he suddenly remembered: when I was alive I published The Varieties of Religious Experience³, so could I now write another book called The Varieties of Religious States? This time I will not mention experience, I will mention religious states. The moment this thought arose, the content of this worldview appeared.

If he had still been alive, the title of this book should have been The Varieties of Religious Understanding -- later the name was corrected, and the name Jane received was The Varieties of Religious States. Actually they are about the same; there is no essential difference between states and understanding. This book was another version of the book he had written while alive.

James's Emotional State and the New Worldview

He felt that the soul chooses emotional states, just as you choose, say, a state to settle in. For example, if you choose to live in Washington State -- the state where Seattle is located -- then there will be a lot of rainy weather; if you choose to settle in California, then there will be a lot of sunny weather; if you choose to live in one of the New England states, then heavy snow is inevitable. He said that you choose emotions just as you choose which state in America to live in.

Earlier it was said that James was in a rather melancholy emotional state. He felt that the chosen emotional state was used as a framework through which he viewed experience. Whichever emotional state you choose, you use that emotional state as the framework through which you view the things you experience. For example, if you choose a melancholy emotion, then you view everything with a faint blue tint -- like wearing a pair of blue-tinted glasses.

James began to see what he loosely called a congealed picture of religious states -- like solidified jelly, which is also why Jane said this book was called The Varieties of Religious States, not without reason. This view of religion was James's own view, and at this point Jane could, by means of James's worldview, view the states of religion.

Each one is different from the others, like jelly, with various flavors, various colors, and various sizes. Yet each one unifies experience from the viewpoint of its particular natural characteristics. What are natural characteristics? They are closely related to the regional culture in which the religion is located, the founder of the religion, its disseminators, and so on. This religion uses this particular viewpoint to unify the views of their religion. Those natural characteristics will appear in the form of the soul's general temperament and inclinations -- every soul has its own qualities, and those natural characteristics are somewhat like the soul's temperament and inclinations.

Ruburt Tuned In to the Unwritten Book

Ruburt tuned in to that unwritten book. He carried the imprint of James's own emotional state at that time (1964). At that time, in your terms, James was standing from the viewpoint of an individual who had died and could look back, viewing secular experience. Why was he melancholy? Because at that time James could use the angle of "a person who has died but can still look back" to form his own personal experience, to form an entirely new worldview, and then to look at which of his previous ideas were reasonable and which were not -- that is, after his death, when reviewing the views he had held during his life, he began to reflect.

At that point of his existence, the situation had changed: the plan to write that book existed, and still exists now. Then he began to think about writing a new book, to sort through once again the views he had held while alive. And at this point he was already dead, already fifty years after death, and he still wanted to sort through this material.

In Ruburt's present, he was able to see the worldview expressed in James's immortal mind. The so-called "immortal mind" is relative to the worldview he had held while alive -- remember, this worldview was already different from the one he had while alive; it was a worldview he had reorganized.

To do this, Ruburt had to be able to freely accept a view of reality perceived by another person. He had to accept that it was someone else's worldview, not his own -- how another person views this world, he had to accept it. Unlike how we ordinary people perceive this world, only able to accept our own single viewpoint, with only one single cognition of our own, not allowing other people's perspectives.

To accomplish this, Ruburt allowed one part of his consciousness to remain safely anchored in his own reality, while at the same time letting another part absorb -- so to speak -- a reality not his own. Ruburt wanted to bring James's worldview into our world, so he had to view this world through James's worldview. On the one hand, he had to keep Ruburt's own worldview firmly placed in his own reality (this physical reality), while at the same time he had to let another part absorb James's worldview, viewing this world from James's perspective.

The Shock Brought by Unknown Reality

Again, because of your precise orientation, you are often theoretically attracted to speculations about worlds not your own, and obviously you may often long for some evidence of those other realities, but you are just as likely to be shocked by the very evidence you so eagerly request.

What is said here is about the feelings of Rob and Jane at that time. Earlier, during Session 117, didn't the two of them feel very strange and unable to accept the matter of "being able to connect with this famous person," and were both quite alarmed? Seth said, why were they alarmed? It was because you both wanted to know unknown reality, and when I made unknown reality available to you, you became afraid.

Regarding this unknown reality, our thinking about it and speculating about it arouses great interest. But when you let me see it, when you see it, you are extremely shocked and extremely afraid.

The Path of Exploration Must Be Walked by Oneself

Ruburt began his own journey into unknown reality -- he had already begun exploring. Seth said, I cannot do that for him, I can only point out the way, as I do for every reader. Seth pointed out to every reader: unknown reality has a path in your inner world, and he also told you the practice methods -- the earlier Exercises 1 through 10 lay the foundation, and later Exercises 11 and 12 directly lead you into unknown reality. The method has been told to you, and the path has been pointed out to you, but this exploration must be walked by yourself; no one can complete it for you.

Seth said that Ruburt, in his own book The Politics of the Psyche, explained in his personal way the things he experienced. And because he shares the same reality with you, his explanations may resonate with you even more than mine. The reason is that Ruburt (Jane) is a person living in the three-dimensional world, and he described his own experiences and put them in The Politics of the Psyche, which resonates with us more than what Seth describes -- because Seth, after all, is not in our three-dimensional world.

However, if he wanted to, it would be entirely possible for him to tune in to James's entire book. Because that work is indeed a reality of the psyche, a blueprint or a model existing within the order of activity. Jane said she saw the entire book as it had already been published -- a small paperback, though as small as microfilm.

What problem does this matter illustrate? It illustrates that the things in unknown reality truly exist. Because later Jane indeed brought out the entire content of this book, and it was even published. In our group, someone translated it -- for example, Superluminal, relying on his own efforts alone, simply translated it, producing a simplified Chinese version; in addition, Helen found a traditional Chinese version from Taiwan, and both of these are electronic versions. If you are interested in this book, you can take a look; this book is also very well written. Superluminal has recommended it many times, and it seems Helen also read aloud its preface and the first one or two chapters; I do not know whether she continued reading aloud after that. That book can, from the perspective of a deceased American psychologist and philosopher (William James), provide a completely new cognitive perspective on American society. If you want to understand American society more deeply, to understand some of the underlying things in American society, you can take a look at this book. Moreover, some of his views on the whole world can be thought-provoking.

So do you say that these unknown realities are all deceptive, or unclear, or vague? No. You can also see, through Jane's efforts and work, that it really happened. Jane's ability in this area is indeed very strong: she was able to take a book from the psychic library -- called The Politics of the Psyche -- and combine it with her own experience to produce a book; she was also able to combine with William James's worldview and produce this book as well; she even published Paul Cezanne's view of fine art, of painting, of art (also a post-death view)⁹. From this you know that there are many, many things in between that you find inconceivable, and they all really happened. The Paul Cezanne book is being translated by someone in our country named Yuting, who is leading the effort, mainly herself, in translating it. But this book was not published in mainland China; it was published in Taiwan. If you want to read it, it is available on Taobao. I also bought it and gave it to some artist friends -- a painter friend, as I mentioned before, who said this book had a very great influence on him.

Creative Architectural Blueprints

Such creative architectural blueprints are often unknowingly received.

It does not matter whether they exist from a dead person or a living person. They may be unknowingly received by someone else, and then altered or changed, and the result becomes an entirely new work, and others do not know how it came about. Most authors do not closely examine the sources of their inspiration -- they do not know where the thing came from either; they just picked something up, felt it was good, and changed it into their own thing. Of course this also applies to any field of endeavor -- not only can it be obtained unknowingly, you can also obtain it through effort.

Many very modern and mature developments once existed in what you now consider past civilizations. Many modern high-tech civilizations may have already existed in our remote antiquity. And at that time their blueprints, as models, were received by inventors, scientists, and such people, and then altered in their own particular directions -- becoming their own fields and directions of research. So these things will emerge in your world, not like a copy of someone else's work, but like something new, a new invention, a new creation.

The most typical example of this is when Tesla invented the alternating current motor. He did not hesitate to say in his own notes that this was something in his mind, something that took shape in his brain, and then through repeated deduction and simulation in his brain, it finally took form, and then he began to build a prototype in the laboratory, and it worked the first time -- he built the model of the alternating current generator in just one attempt¹⁰. Because he made it entirely according to the image in his mind. Many people think it was his invention and creation, but whether someone else gave it to him, or whether he obtained it from elsewhere -- none of this matters.

Many so-called archaeological discoveries occur when an individual suddenly tunes in to the worldview of a person not in your space and time. Someone suddenly discovers in some place, saying, "There is something here; if we dig we may find something." This kind of so-called "discovery" is actually all cases where this person, perhaps unknowingly, tuned in to the worldview of certain people not in our space and time, in other spaces and times -- those people told him: there is a tomb here. For example, how can some people discover that there is a Tang Dynasty tomb here? It is because he may have come into contact with the worldview of another person not in this space and time, perhaps someone from the Tang Dynasty, and connected with that person. That person said that when he was alive, he knew there was a tomb here, or an ancient city, or a historical site, and so on. You think archaeological discoveries are all made so accidentally, but actually they are not; this kind of thing happens often.

However, before you have the confidence to leave your own particular home station, you must feel safe within it -- because you must know that when you return, your present reality will be here, will not run away, will not be lost.

Writers and Artists Translating Worldviews

As a writer, Ruburt had trained himself to deal with words. The most basic function of a writer, the most basic fundamental skill, is to deal with words. Therefore, when he received a worldview belonging to someone else, he could quite automatically translate it faithfully in that manner. Because Ruburt was a writer, and what he was best at in writing novels was switching between different people's perspectives, to virtually construct someone else's worldview, to start from the unique perspective of that person's personality and worldview, and to describe it from that person's angle, turning it into a novel -- in his novels he often had to switch the perspectives of characters. So when he suddenly captured someone else's worldview, he used his literary foundation to very easily depict the world he saw through that person's worldview, describing the world as seen through that worldview. Because this is very similar to the way Ruburt usually wrote novels.

For example, if you want to create a novel, suppose this novel is not purely fictional but adapted from your own experiences, then there will be some protagonists in it, and besides your own participation, there may be other protagonists. How those protagonists conduct themselves, how they speak, how they behave, how they act in your story, in this world you have fictionalized (a world half fictional and half real), is all determined by the inner worldview of that person. And as a writer, you should have the ability to conceive of the worldview of a virtual (this character may be real) person. You must first conceive of one, or through chatting and communicating with him, you guess and speculate about what his worldview is like. So describing something starting from a worldview was not at all unfamiliar to Jane.

Many painters do the same thing, converting inner models into layers of dye, pigment, lines, and shapes. The artist mentioned earlier (Chaochi?) -- this painter, whether he does porcelain panel paintings, oil paintings, or healing paintings, the painting is all in his mind. He does not need to create anything; he merely transfers it over. For example, a couple of days ago he painted a picture and sent it to me: what he painted was a purple crystal city, a city composed of purple crystals in the sky, and the sky was another kind of purplish red; and this purple crystal was soft, translucent, as if it had temperature and life, as if it were flowing -- somewhat like the feeling of jelly, but crystal clear like crystal. So, many painters, artists, writers, and authors may have much of their content not from our space and time, but from their inner world.

Scientists and inventors also often use the same method, tuning in to the worldviews of others whose intent, abilities, and purposes match their own -- in your terms, living or dead people.

Many scientists and inventors purposefully tune in to the worldviews of those people they want to obtain. Scientists tend to be more rational, so they will not link randomly without purpose. They will link with these people -- linking with the material of those who share their profession, field, subject, or who can solve their problems. Whether that person is alive or dead, they will want to link.

There are also other reinterpreted worldviews that form a matrix. This word means "matrix," but it also means "model" or "template." What is meant here is more of the following: however you understand it is fine -- if you say matrix, that is right; if you say model, that is also right. Those worldviews obtained from other people, which they have reinterpreted and reconstructed according to their own fields and directions of research, give rise to new creations. They do not directly copy other people's material; rather, those other people's worldviews gave them new insights and new angles for viewing the world, giving them new ideas and new creations in solving their own problems.

Practical Application in Everyday Difficulties

Seth said that the same thing also applies to the more mundane efforts of daily life. For example -- many people become interested, right? What use is this thing to us? We are not scientists, and we are not inventors.

He said:

You may be in a seemingly unsolvable dilemma -- since this dilemma is your dilemma, it is extremely likely to be highly personal, it is unique, because it is your dilemma, and it has never happened in any other way. No one has ever looked at your particular predicament through your eyes. Yet others have stood in similar circumstances, solved the challenges involved, and gone on to greater creativity and achievement.

When you are in a personal predicament -- for example, your family problems, your work problems, your relationship problems with your parents -- it seems as though it is completely private, with no universal solution. But Seth says, rest assured: it is personal, and no one else will stand in your position to help you solve this kind of problem; but others have dealt with similar problems, and they solved them. Similar situations are certainly not the same as yours -- you must be clear about this, it will absolutely not be the same as yours; your personal uniqueness is absolutely affirmed and acknowledged. But others can solve similar predicaments.

If you can temporarily set aside your private worldview -- put down your current worldview -- and then refocus the point from which you experience reality onto those people who have already dealt with and already resolved problems similar to yours, then you can allow the experience of those who have handled similar challenges to color your perception.

What does this mean specifically? It means finding people who were once in situations similar to yours, but who have already overcome these difficulties, who have already gotten past these hurdles. You align your reality with theirs. First you set aside your own reality. First stop thinking that this is a purely personal problem, a problem unique to you, a problem no one else has a solution for -- put that thought down first. First pull yourself out of the point where you are stuck in this difficult situation, then focus the focal point of your consciousness on those people who have solved the problem, align with their solutions, and apply them to your personal situation -- look at how they handled it, how they solved it.

In fact, you often do this unconsciously. Seth says, don't think this only works in a subconscious way; you can also do it consciously.

Simply put: if you are in a very difficult situation, a problem that cannot be solved by your personal abilities alone, first set the matter aside, then look around at the people near you, or people from history you have read about, characters in novels, or other people -- find someone who has solved a similar problem. Then try to align your consciousness with theirs, and see what methods they have for solving the problem. Their solution may not be perfectly suited to you, but it will bring you a unique perspective and new insight, it will broaden your thinking, and then give you new choices or a new direction for the difficult situation before you. You will solve your problem. This is an application for our practical lives; we need to learn to use this. Seth says, each of you ordinarily does this unconsciously all the time; now I am telling you, you can do it consciously -- don't make it into something mysterious.

The Question of Quality in Channeled Information

Seth changed the subject. He said that many people who play with Ouija boards and those who do automatic writing often receive information that seems to claim to come from historical figures. There are many such people, saying "I have linked up with so-and-so, I have linked up with the Queen Mother of the West, I have linked up with Guanyin Bodhisattva," and some even claim to have linked up with Seth, linked up with the Buddha, and so on.

However, that material is often far inferior to what those historical figures produced during their lifetimes. The received material, when compared with the already existing written books, will immediately show an obvious difference -- the level is far too low.

Let me give an example, without naming anyone specifically. There was someone who once said, "I have contacted Seth; after channeling, I too can receive Seth; Seth talks to me." He even opened a class and charged fees. For example, do you want to ask Seth a question? Add me on WeChat, add me on QQ, and after you add me, each person pays a certain amount. I contact Seth on a certain day each week or each month, and then you all ask me questions in the group, ask Seth questions, and Seth will come and answer you. The problem is: sometimes he is not deliberately deceiving people; he himself truly believes he has connected with Seth, and he has that feeling too. But if you carefully look at his answers and discussions of these questions after he connects with Seth -- look at his content, and you will understand that compared with the already published Seth material, whether in breadth, depth, or level of awareness, it is far inferior. You can go try it. For people who have never encountered the Seth material, what he says sounds quite novel and quite persuasive; but if you have read four or five Seth books, you will say: he still hasn't explained it as thoroughly as the books Seth has already published; even his difficulty, depth, and breadth are far from sufficient.

Seth happens to mention this issue here, so I will mention it in passing. This is not aimed at any particular person; I am just saying that there are many, many such things -- not only matters of channeling Seth. Many people say, "I channel this and I channel that, channel the Eastern Emperor, channel the Queen Mother of the West, channel this ancestor, that Laozi" -- there are plenty. Everyone, don't blindly believe them. If what they say is truly very good, we acknowledge them, no problem -- this kind of possibility can happen; we do not deny these things. But if the quality and level of what is transmitted is not even as good as the level of the books already published, then there is not much point. What use is it to listen to him or not listen to him? Even if it really were Seth who came, so what? If what he says is not even as good as what was said before, it is useless.

Seth continued:

Yet in many such instances, the Ouija board operator or the automatic writer was somewhat aligned with a worldview, struggling to open the pathways of perception so that it could freely perceive a version of an altered reality, but was not prepared through training and temperament to express it.

He says that many times they are aligned with a worldview, struggling to open their own pathways of perception -- still unskilled themselves, still struggling to open them -- trying to enable themselves to freely perceive a version of an altered reality, but not prepared well enough through training and temperament to express it.

Seth here makes two points. Training means: you need to learn how, in the unknown reality, through new means of expression, through a completely new perceptual system, to perceive that unknown reality; this requires training. It is not that the moment you connect you possess this ability, because if you still carry the knowledge and worldview of this three-dimensional world, you cannot obtain the true cognition of that world. So this requires training.

Second, temperament must be prepared. What does that mean? Temperament being prepared means that you and the person you are connecting with need to be close in frequency. If your frequency is too far from his, if your temperament is too far from his, then you cannot express it well either. Suppose you are a person in the three-dimensional world with very strong dualistic concepts, a person who still has very deep beliefs in reincarnation, transmigration, good and evil, good deeds and bad deeds, doing good deeds, seeking blessings and rewards -- do you think you can connect with Seth? Even if you do connect, can you accurately express his meaning? Without good training and without good preparation of temperament, you are not sufficient to express him.

Seth inserted these two points here: it is permissible for you to connect with these worldviews, but it is not that once you connect, the problem is solved. For example, you are now an ordinary physicist, just working in a research institute, quite average in all abilities, and at this time you say, I want to connect with Einstein's worldview -- never mind whether you can connect or not; suppose you do connect, what can you get out of it? From Einstein's worldview -- even if decades after Einstein's death there is a new insight, even if he has perfected unified field theory or quantum mechanics again from his own angle -- can you receive it? Is your level, your knowledge, your realm, your ability sufficient for you to re-examine this world from the perspective of quantum mechanics? This is a core point.

Communication Between the Living and the Dead

The most effective instances of communication between the living and the dead occur within an intimate personal framework -- in which dead parents contact their children, or a husband or wife who has just left physical reality appears to the spouse. But historical figures rarely contact people, except within their own intimate circles.

He says that communication between the living and the dead, these effective instances, often occur within intimate relationships -- direct family members, or those without direct family ties but with very deep emotional connections; these will happen. If you do not have a very deep emotional connection, the probability of this happening is very, very low. Not that it is impossible, just that it is very low. There are too many stories and cases here; we won't cite them.

Historical figures rarely contact ordinary people. For example, when a great historical figure dies, he is unlikely to contact you, but he may contact his family, right? Einstein died; he won't contact you, but he may contact someone else. Steve Jobs died; he won't contact you, but he will contact his own wife and children. This is what Seth means, very plainly: don't think that just because I told you that you can connect with other people's worldviews, you should go around connecting all day -- turning on your little radar, spinning your little antenna, wanting to connect with this one today, wanting to connect with that one tomorrow. Don't waste your effort and time on this.

Those who persisted enough to become widely known in their own era -- these historical figures -- possess remarkable energy. For a person to become a famous historical figure, he has energy different from ordinary people. That tremendous impetus of psychic and spiritual energy does not stop at his death -- the spiritual and psychic energy that propelled him to widespread fame does not disappear just because he died; it continues. Others, in their own way, may perhaps align with that continuing worldview. And after receiving it, they may be convinced that they have made contact with the specific personality who held it -- they feel they are in contact with the personality himself, when in fact they are only in contact with his worldview, not with the personality itself. Seth emphasizes this point again.

The Danger of Interpreting New Experience in Ways Familiar to the Ego

You are so accustomed to your own private interpretation of reality that when you allow yourself to begin to drift away -- to drift away from this private reality of your own -- you immediately want to interpret your new experience in ways that are meaningful to your familiar orientation.

We each have our own unique view of our world. When you go exploring in the unknown reality, you often interpret what you see, hear, and feel in ways that are meaningful to your present reality. In fact, there is not much connection between them, but you will interpret it in this way -- a bunch of random explanations. You are also very closely connected with symbols, and you often have ideas about those symbols, feeling that this hints at something, that hints at something else.

In daily life, you often hinder your own creativity -- because you look at things through this experiential, historical view, through other people's concepts, and do not use your own creativity. When you use a Ouija board or are in a trance state, you also often release the frozen philosophical regions in your head -- that is, some worldviews, some hidden places of philosophy that you originally suppressed with all your might and covered up with all your might in real life, places that were frozen; at this time they all come alive, they all loosen up.

Thus, the material obtained does indeed seem to come from outside you. And because you are one person in one place, you feel that those things come from outside, so you try to interpret this experience in a rigid, one-step-at-a-time manner. When you are in a trance state or playing with a Ouija board, much of what you obtain cannot be explained by your traditional concepts, because you feel that these things all come from outside you, when in fact they all come from hidden parts of your inner worldview. Those frozen philosophical regions -- originally you would never use such judgments, such reasoning, but in that state you will use them -- you yourself did not know you had a completely new angle from which to explain this matter. At this time you cannot interpret it in the traditional way; the moment you interpret it, you fall into cliche, and you have not truly understood its meaning.

The material must have come from a philosopher, and since he was obviously quite profound in relation to your ordinary worldly organizations, then it seemed that such material must have originated from a profound mind obviously not your own.

Trance States and "Profound Material"

When you play with a Ouija board or enter a trance, and think you have connected with some great person -- a dead famous philosopher, such as Laozi or the Buddha, with guidance coming from these great figures -- in fact those things all come from yourself, from your own closed-off, frozen philosophical regions. Ordinarily you freeze them and don't discover them; after you release them, you are startled: this is so profound, this surely cannot be my own, this surely must be from some great person. So you say, this is from some great person.

Seth explains this situation as well, putting it bluntly: you have not connected with any philosopher at all; you have merely released some philosophical concepts from your own mind. You may be symbolically signaling to yourself. So the divination board -- that is, the board used for divination, or the Ouija board, or automatic writing -- will indicate its source as Socrates or Plato. When you play with it, it will often tell you, Socrates has come, Plato has come. If you have a spiritualist orientation, the material may then come from a recently deceased famous medium; if you are interested in the occult, it may come from a medium who has just died. The real situation is not like this -- you have not connected with anyone; you have merely temporarily stepped outside your habitual worldview, stepped outside your ordinary reality. You are touching other layers of reality, but still interpreting your experience in the old terms:

So then, the greater part of its creativity escapes your attention.

If you insist on interpreting it with the old logic, you can only interpret it into the kind of appearance described above.

Each of you is as valuable as Socrates or Plato; your influence, in ways you do not understand, extends throughout the entire framework of actuality.

Don't always envy world-class philosophers and great figures like Socrates and Plato; your influence is not inferior to theirs. In ways you do not understand, you influence the entire world, the entire framework of actuality.

Socrates and Plato, and James -- (Seth said: "Famous, I smiled." Seth insisted that Rob write this sentence down, saying, write a parenthesis: famous, I smiled.)

You can see how humorous and mischievous Seth is, still taking the time to tease the couple.

He said that Socrates and Plato, and James, specialized in certain ways... You know those individuals as famous people who have existed, but in your terms, and only in your terms, using your methods, those existences represent one facet of your personality.

They focused on their own specialized fields -- for example, Socrates and Plato, in the field they studied -- those people you know, those individuals who have existed, in your human terms, and only in your terms, those existences represent the most brilliant facet of their personalities.

Now, only in your terms... from the standpoint of time, before they reached what you consider those peaks, they often dwelt nameless upon the face of the earth, like many of you.

Before they reached what you consider the peak of their lives, they were also nameless nobodies, just like you, so you need not belittle yourselves.

Rob's Question: What Is an Unconscious State

This session is very long. At 11:49 Seth let Jane rest for about a minute, and after she returned he delivered the midnight material for Jane and Rob -- Ruburt made a leap, jumped into his psychic library, and released himself from the body. Rob also made an equally important leap, and released himself artistically. Seth said that the library was appropriate, and in the most effective terms, it was far more important than a physical library.

Seth ended his personal material at 12:10. We thought the session was over; Jane was already very tired, and she just wanted to go to sleep -- by this time it was already 12:10. But it was not over. When Rob closed his notebook, he noticed a question he had written down in Volume 1, at Session 697. In that session Seth told us:

Because in your terms, you are now a conscious species, so there are certain species-wide idealizations that you can accept or deny.

Rob did not understand this sentence. He made a note saying: What state can there be besides a conscious state? I don't understand. Seth's sentence meant that for present humanity, you are a conscious species, but there are also other species-wide idealizations that you can accept or deny -- that is, there are other branches of human civilization. But among those other branches of humanity, some are conscious, and some are unconscious.

Rob found this strange: conscious ones I understand, other conscious ones I also understand, but what kind of state is an unconscious one? He said:

He said I find it very difficult to understand such a situation, and perhaps that reveals more about the problems in my way of thinking than anything else.

How can humanity or its individual members exist in a way that is not conscious? How can there be no consciousness? Because Rob believed that our collective or individual behavior is consciously designed for survival. He was curious: for the sake of existence, in what other state of existence could these functions also be accomplished?

There are several different layers in Seth's words.

Layers of Consciousness: A Fly Is Also Complete

Seth came back at 12:14. He said:

I am expressing my meaning using your terms, in the way I understand you and give them meaning.

He said that this statement has layered existence. Every word, for example "consciousness," has a fixed meaning for you humans; he uses the way most of you understand this word, uses this kind of vocabulary to organize his language, to explain the issue to you.

Seth repeatedly emphasizes that there are layers of existence here -- you cannot just look at the surface of the words; you need to look deeper down. He said:

When I use the word conscious or consciousness, I am using it in the sense that you understand it.

When I say consciousness, I assume you understand it this way:

Being conscious of being conscious of oneself, or placing yourself partly outside the conscious part of yourself, looking at it, and then saying I am conscious of my consciousness.

This is the first layer, and it is not finished yet.

Consciousness is always aware of itself, and aware of its validity and integrity.

As discussed earlier, consciousness is energy with self-awareness. If it is called consciousness, it must be able to be aware of itself -- if it cannot be aware of itself, it is just energy, and cannot be called consciousness. And it also knows that it is valid and complete.

In those terms, there is no unconscious existence.

In other words, this universe, or all realities, are composed of units of consciousness. Units of consciousness are the basic constituent units of all realities, all universes, visible and invisible. Do you think that all realities composed of units of consciousness could exist without consciousness? There is no such thing as "unconscious" -- all things have consciousness. What you consider unconscious also has consciousness; is not what you consider unconscious itself also a kind of consciousness? Yes. So from whatever angle you look at it, it is a kind of consciousness. This part is a bit convoluted, but don't panic.

When I use the term in a time context, I mean the formation of a structure in which one kind of consciousness views itself as unique, and then tries to form other kinds of conscious structures.

Every word here is crucial. Why does he say "when I use the term in a time context"? Because the earlier phrase "in your terms" means from the perspective of human time, of the three-dimensional space-time. From the standpoint of time, you are now a conscious species, but you have had unconscious states in your history -- this makes Seth's earlier sentence understandable. When I use the term "consciousness" within time, I mean a process of structural formation: one kind of consciousness among them views itself as unique, and then from this unique consciousness gradually develops other kinds of conscious structures. This is a process of the development of consciousness, not a fixed, single consciousness.

Afraid you wouldn't understand, he gave an example:

A fly is aware of itself, and within that reality it is complete; it does not feel the need to form an extension of that awareness, and from that extension to view its own existence.

A fly knows its own existence. Within its fly world, it is complete, always living in the present moment. The fly does not feel that it needs to make an extension of this awareness -- an extension means becoming a new structure in which consciousness views itself. The fly does not need to do this, but humans need to. This is also where humans differ from flies: humans are not satisfied with the completeness of the present moment; they insist on extending out a self-consciousness to look at themselves, a consciousness that can be aware of its own existence. This is a bit convoluted; let me put it plainly:

You are originally a consciousness, and you can be aware of your own existence. But you are not satisfied, so you develop a self-consciousness, and the self-consciousness separates from the original consciousness, jumps out, and says, let me see what my consciousness looks like. This is what Seth has been saying all along.

In your terms, time considerations involved that kind of extension of consciousness... in which separations could occur, and divisions could be made. In terms of an organic structure, this could be compared to developing another arm or leg, or a protruding object, or a stamen, through another method of movement in another dimension.

From the standpoint of time, consciousness has been extended: it has changed, it has divided. You then think it has become another new thing, no longer its original consciousness. Using an object as an analogy, it is like a person growing a third hand or a third leg, or a flower growing a stamen. From the material standpoint, it has changed. But what he means is, it is still your consciousness -- only the consciousness has changed, and you think it has changed. You insist on adding a time axis to it, and then tell it that this consciousness has changed, grown an extra hand, evolved into a shape like this. But for consciousness itself, it has never changed, and consciousness itself has no concept of time. If you insist on adding time, you see change, you see gaps, you see separation, you see alteration; but for consciousness itself, all of this happens simultaneously. It has both grown an extra leg and not grown an extra leg; it has both grown an extra hand and not grown an extra hand. Growing the extra hand and not growing the extra hand both exist for consciousness.

A Fly Is Very Conscious

A fly is very conscious, fully engrossed in its own immediate environment at every moment, precisely aligned with those elements that you are unconscious of.

A fly is very conscious -- he used "very," remember. At every moment it is fully engrossed in its own immediate environment. Can we humans do this? Are you fully engrossed in yourself and your surrounding environment at every moment? You can't do it, right? So he says a fly is very conscious; by comparison, compared with a fly, do we humans have as strong a consciousness as a fly? No.

It is precisely aligned with those elements that you consider unconscious. This means that those things outside our human consciousness, the things we consider unimportant, consider unconscious, and ignore -- those are the things the fly has always been paying attention to, always focusing on. To put it plainly, the fly contacts this reality more directly; even this physical camouflage reality, its cognition of and contact with it is more direct than ours. And how do we humans contact reality? Through our own experience, our own judgment, our own cognition, our own beliefs, to judge. We rarely bring consciousness to be aware of ourselves, let alone aware of our surrounding environment. Those seemingly unconscious parts, the parts that are unconscious for us humans, are the truly meaningful places of this reality, and they are also the places the fly pays attention to.

You think you are more advanced than a fly, that your consciousness is more advanced than a fly's -- that is what you think, that is only what you think. Just like you think you are smarter than a cell; it is the same principle.

It is just that there are different kinds of consciousness, and basically, you cannot compare one with another.

Just as you cannot compare a toad with a star, with an apple, with a thought, with a woman, with a child, with an aboriginal person, with a suburban resident, with a spider, with a cat. Consciousness also comes in many kinds. What you humans regard as the unconscious is merely another kind of consciousness, one that is not recognized by you humans. Consciousness comes in many kinds, and your human consciousness is only one of them. But you insist on believing that only human consciousness counts as consciousness, and that everything else does not count as consciousness -- the reason being that those kinds of consciousness are outside the range of our cognition, so we consider them unconscious.

There are all kinds of consciousness, each focused on its own view of reality, each containing the experience that the others exclude.

Each consciousness feels its world through the focus of its own consciousness -- a fly perceives reality through the focus of a fly's consciousness, a spider through a spider's perspective, a cat through a cat's perspective, a woman has a woman's perspective, a man has a man's perspective, a child has a child's perspective. And each contains the experience that the others exclude.

For example, to a woman, love is greater than the heavens; love is the most important thing. But can the cat she dotes on most understand her love? You think love truly exists, you say it absolutely exists, that it is the whole of your life, the pursuit of your life, the main thread of your entire life. But why can the cat not perceive it? Because the cat has excluded it; it is not within the cat's cognition, not within the cat's consciousness. Conversely, do you think there is love between cats? You are not a cat, so how would you know whether there is or not? Do you think there is love between mandarin ducks? You do not know either.

What Seth wants to tell you in this passage is this: this is a basic characteristic of consciousness -- we focus only on the focal point where our own consciousness resides. This is normal. But he also points out: it is not the only focal point. From the standpoint of consciousness, they are all interconnected in themselves. Whether it is a cat's consciousness, or the consciousness of a stone, the consciousness of a fish, the consciousness of a woman, they are all the same in essence. The experiences that are excluded by it are also present within it at the same time, only it has no way of feeling them.

So the things a fly perceives are things we humans cannot perceive, but that does not mean the world in which humans exist is not real to the fly -- these are two entirely different concepts. So Seth says, what I am saying here has many levels, it is layered. In Buddhist terms, it has stages. Which point you can grasp depends on your own comprehension.

From such a short explanation of what "being conscious" means, you can see the breadth and depth of the Seth material. He often pauses, often does not know how to say it, how to use a certain word. Just this one fragment is a very good observation for us: the meaning of the Seth material is not only on the surface of the words; it has deeper meaning within it, and at different states, in different conditions, at different stages of life, our understanding of this material is different.

Seth said rather loudly and humorously:

Explanation over.

He announced very excitedly that the explanation was over. Rob laughed and said, thank you very much -- Rob obviously did not fully understand. Why did he laugh? He was very grateful that Seth had, separately and at such a late hour, given him a private explanation, and Jane had also done her best; it was already past midnight and she was still explaining to him. But Rob did not seem to have fully understood, because he did not say whether he understood or not; he only said "thank you very much."

Rob's supplementary note and James's book

In December 1977, Rob added a note: Session 718, which discusses worldviews, formally became a cornerstone of Jane's own development. Jane's The World View of Paul Cezanne¹¹ -- a psychic interpretation, had already been published in 1977. And she had also completed The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher¹², the world view of William James, which would be published in 1978. Both of these books have already been published, but no material about Jung was added.

Strangely, the first few pages of the James material that Jane saw in her mind's eye during Session 717 -- that is, the few pages excerpted earlier -- although they were placed in Chapter 6 of Psychic Integrity¹³, they did not appear at all in The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher¹². Jane explained to him that in her psychic library there were two different books by James, and she had only transcribed one of them.

Jane remembered part of the two practice units she had tuned into on Monday night, that is, part of Exercise 11 and Exercise 12. At present, even if he recalled that fragment, it was well worth trying -- he only had a vague memory of the exercise while sleeping. Rob said that even such a small fragment was very meaningful.

In Exercise 11 and Exercise 12, Seth teaches readers to immerse themselves in an old photograph, and then look outward at our current physical reality through that person's eyes. This is an interesting method for gaining a fresh perspective on our present.

Many people may not know specifically how to do the exercise. Here Seth gives a better method: take an old photograph, it can be of yourself or of someone else, then stare into that person's eyes, and immerse your consciousness into that person's consciousness -- your consciousness pours into that person's brain like water, enters that person's consciousness through their eyes, and then you look at the outside world from that person's perspective -- not at the world in the photograph where they were, but at your present world, seeing it through their eyes. Try it and see what you can see.

This is a very good exercise. What does it practice? It practices shifting the focus of your consciousness, projecting the focus of your consciousness onto a person in a photograph. If Jane could place her consciousness in a fly, why can you not place yours in another person?

Since William James² died in 1910, this means that, in our terms, the worldview Jane received was one he held about 54 years after his physical death. Just from the concepts given in this passage of Seth's material, we could easily ask him a dozen questions: why would he have such thoughts 54 years after death? How could he still have thoughts and write books after death? Where did he think them? How did he think them? What relationship do his thoughts have with the worldview he left behind? And so on. He would probably have some questions to ask him, but he did not ask. Actually, you also know that the questions he asked did not have much technical depth; these things are not important. But for those who have just come into contact with spirituality, these are very important questions.

Rob always had a great many questions that we have not yet voiced. He was very serious, and would list all the questions he wanted to ask, and find time to ask Seth. But with so many questions, whether Seth could answer them, he was not sure either. We are very grateful to Rob, very grateful that he was willing to ask these questions on our behalf.

How probable selves communicate

Here Seth talks about how scientists and inventors often tune into the worldviews of other such people to obtain information. This immediately reminded Rob of a possible similar situation in his own family. In Session 680 of Volume 1, Seth had spoken about Rob's family: Rob's father died in 1971, and he was very gifted mechanically. According to Seth, a living probable self of his was a famous inventor. That probable self never married, and brought his mechanical creative abilities to their fullest, while at the same time avoiding emotional commitment, and did not marry his mother in that life -- although his father's rather challenging sole intention was to raise a family in this reality, to marry his mother, in order to balance the imbalance of that other life in which he did not marry his mother and devoted his energy only to his career.

But he still may have often exchanged ideas about cars, motorcycles, cameras, and so on with that inventor self. Although his father's challenge in this life was mainly to support a family and marry his mother, he still obtained a great deal of mechanical knowledge from his other probable self, and was very interested in it.

So do probable selves actually communicate with one another through the framework of their worldviews? Or does such an exchange of ideas or emotions sometimes happen more directly? That is, direct communication between two personalities, without going through their respective worldviews -- he planned to ask Seth for a detailed explanation on this question.

Communication with the dead and the good-evil concepts of dream travel

---

注释与核实

1. Source: Nature, "William James (1842–1910)" (https://www.nature.com/articles/149047b0) ↩

2. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "William James | Life, Books, Psychology, Contribution, & Facts" (https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-James) ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰

3. Source: Oxford University Press, "The Varieties of Religious Experience" (https://www.oupjapan.co.jp/en/node/12287?language=en) ↩ ↩²

4. Source: Jane Roberts, "The Seth Material" (https://www.sethpublishing.com/booksContent.aspx?id=eFBJK72iMvW1hessxTxxqQ%3D%3D) ↩

5. Source: Wikipedia, "The Secret of the Golden Flower" (https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E5%A4%AA%E4%B9%99%E9%87%91%E8%8F%AF%E5%AE%97%E6%97%A8) ↩

6. Source: Wikipedia, "The Secret of the Golden Flower" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_of_the_Golden_Flower) ↩

7. Source: Wikipedia, "The Red Book (Jung)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Book_(Jung)) ↩

8. Source: Jung, "The Black Books 1913–1932: Notebooks of Transformation" (2020) (https://philemonfoundation.org/works/black-books/) ↩

9. This claim could not be verified. ↩

10. According to Mike's original words, "When Tesla invented the AC motor, he said without any hesitation in his notes that it was a thing in his mind, something formed in his brain, and then after repeated deduction and simulation in his brain, it finally took shape, and then he began to build a prototype in the laboratory, and it worked the first time, and he built the model of the AC generator just once." Upon verification, it should be: "Tesla described conceiving and mentally simulating machines in his mind, but what he built in Strasbourg in 1883 was an AC induction motor, and the first test did not succeed; it only ran after adjustments." (Source: W. Bernard Carlson, "Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age," https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24hpng) ↩

11. Source: Jane Roberts, "The World View of Paul Cezanne: A Psychic Interpretation" (1977) (https://openlibrary.org/books/OL4541307M/The_world_view_of_Paul_Cezanne) ↩

12. Source: Jane Roberts, "The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher: The World View of William James" (1978, Prentice-Hall) (https://archive.org/details/afterdeathjourna0000robe) ↩ ↩²

13. This claim could not be verified. ↩