Mike's commentary · The "Unknown" Reality, Session 740

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

Introduction

Before the session, Jane entered a trance state and saw inner imagery of a corridor, coil treatments, a miniature Seth, and a giant Seth. Seth explained that these images were meant to illustrate that psychic reality cannot be fully expressed in any single form, that reincarnation involves a wholly new personality rather than an old version, and that individuality and larger identity are not contradictory because they exist on different scales. He also used analogies such as numerical intervals and Christmas tree lights to show that each scale has its own infinity, and pointed out, using the example of moving and buying a house involving more than forty related connections, that everyday actions have endless effects.

Key Points of This Chapter

• In a trance state, Jane saw a giant Seth and many mini-Seths; these images were used to convey information about the nature of the psyche.
• Every reincarnational birth is the creation of a brand-new personality, not a new version of an old personality.
• Individuality and the larger self can both hold true at the same time; the difference comes from differences in scope and scale.
• The analogies of numerical intervals and Christmas tree lights illustrate that different scales each have their own infinity.
• Moving house and buying a home involved more than forty related connections, showing that everyday actions have endless effects.

Main Text

After the last session ended, Jane told the students in her ESP class that the sessions would be suspended for a while until she moved into the house on the hill and got settled; she needed to set up the new home. Before this session began, Jane entered an altered state of consciousness different from the Seth trance state — she sat quietly for a while with her eyes closed, and felt a psychological something like a television screen appear on her right side.

Jane said: "Up to now, I've started writing down what I can. This television-screen-like thing is getting closer and closer. I don't know what it is, and I don't know whether it has anything to do with the session." She paused for a moment, then spoke in the past tense — the event was already over for her: "It came very close to me. I passed through it and walked down a long corridor, and inside there were coil-like things. They did something to me, something healing. Then they let me fall back into my chair."

Healing of Consciousness and the Image of Seth

In this state of consciousness, Jane felt a kind of healing done to herself. This kind of healing actually happens to us quite often, generally in deep sleep, but we are usually not aware of it. When Seth performed this healing on Jane, he used coil-like things.

While waiting for the session to begin, Jane continued describing the inner imagery she was following: "I see a miniature Seth in that corridor. He looks like the one in the portrait Rob drew of Seth, except it's a full-body image." Then she returned to the present tense: "Now he comes forward, then retreats. He comes very fast, but in some way, Seth is behind the scenes; he is not the one leading in front. Now this miniature Seth turns around, walks away, walks out of the corridor, and enters into a great Seth that is like a statue, a magnificent one."

Next, Jane described a series of increasingly wondrous images:

Inside the eyes of that great Seth, there were two small Seths, miniature little Seths looking outward. These two figures are just like the portrait you drew — just like the portrait you drew of Seth. Now, they climbed out of the eyes and climbed onto the head of the great Seth, forming the shape of a garland. They sat back to back, like a pair of monks sitting on top of Seth's head.

At this point Jane looked very surprised: "Wow, a whole group of little Seths has climbed onto the top of the giant's head. They are indeed in perfect postures. They are like statues, each with its own style, like the five hundred arhats¹, each with its own style, but all of them alive." She paused and said: "These little figures are on top of the great Seth's head, facing all directions... I know that phrasing isn't right; it's not a good metaphor."

Those little Seths were on top of Seth's head, each facing its own different direction. The so-called "all directions" does not mean actual directions; it just means that each one had a unique orientation, but they were like the gargoyles on Gothic architecture — the spouts that catch rainwater and let it drip down so it doesn't run along the wall.

Then, those miniature Seths and the great Seth all disappeared, receding into the distance, but Jane said she "had never seen the full body of the giant Seth." Even when he receded far away, she still could not see his full form — she could only see his head and arms most clearly. "The distance between that whole thing and me is immeasurable." Even at such a great distance, that Seth was still so large that in her field of vision she could only see the shoulders, arms, and head — she could not even see below the chest.

After another pause, Jane said: "All right, I think I can begin the session now. I can get ready for the session, but I won't know whether he will explain this phenomenon until Seth begins to speak."

Seth's Explanation of the Images Jane Saw

Seth came through and said quietly:

Ruburt saw those images in a particular way so that he could understand certain information about the nature of the psyche.

Seth showed Jane these images first of all so that she could understand the nature of the psyche. He had never been clearly glimpsed by Ruburt in my own gigantic image — that is his own larger reality, beyond the scope of what consciousness can comprehend. So you cannot see all of it; what you see is always only a part of him.

What is being said here is also a situation we often encounter: some people see deceased relatives or see the Buddha in dreams, but they can only see a part — some people can only see the Buddha's feet, some can only see certain parts, and it is very hard to see the whole body. Because that identity cannot be fully expressed within the boundaries of any single form. To put it bluntly, from our human three-dimensional angle, from the perspective of three-dimensional space, you can never see this larger reality in full. Why can't you see it in full? Because you are not on the same scale. To put it at a deeper level, you are not in the same dimension. To put it simply, we can only say the scale is different. You are at the scale of microns or nanometers, while they are at a scale measured in light-years. Even if both of you are in the same space, you cannot comprehend it, because it is far, far larger than you.

Seth continued:

Ruburt saw many miniature versions of me. In his inner vision, these appeared to be exactly alike. Only because of that could he recognize them as parts of me, but each of them is actually quite different from the others — male or female, young or old.

Those little Seths, so that Ruburt could recognize that they were all parts of Seth, all became the same in Ruburt's inner imagery. But Ruburt also pointed out their differences: their postures were each different, and their orientations were each different — each one faced its own direction, each one involved itself in its own sphere of reality, each one pursued its own direction for its own purposes.

One of these Seths was born in your time and space. That Seth then seeded himself — so to speak — appearing generation after generation within the space-time environment as you perceive it, sending out his own offshoots, exploring earthly experience, and developing as best he could those potentials of his own larger identity that could most flower and bear fruit within a biological framework.

Let me make this passage a bit clearer: each of those miniature Seths lives in a different reality — different realities mean different universes, possibly on alien planets, on other planets, or in other spaces of consciousness, not here at all. And among these many miniature Seths, one of them came to our world and was born in this universe of ours, which we call the three-dimensional world. This one Seth entered our space-time and began to seed himself — he did not just come this once and that was it; he appeared in every century, appearing generation after generation, but in coming this once he differentiated into countless offshoots. Each offshoot went to explore earthly experience, to develop those potentials most likely to flower and bear fruit within our biological framework, within the physical world — that is, all the possibilities by which the inner potentials of that great Seth could manifest on the material level.

That one Seth was endowed with his own inner blueprint. Within his body, all his offshoots, all his branches, were created according to the purpose of this blueprint. That blueprint gave him a concept of his potentials.

Remember, it is only a concept, not a blueprint document of several thousand pages saying you should do this and you should do that. He was only developing a general concept of his own potentials — and how those potentials could best be realized in earthly terms.

The Limitlessness of the Self

Seth then returned to the theme he has repeatedly emphasized:

Again, as I have said many times before: the self has no limitations.

No limitations, so he can split himself off without becoming less. You can draw out countless offshoots, but you will not diminish yourself. Let me give an analogy: you download a movie from the internet, and people all over the world can download it too. It is not the case that because you downloaded it, the movie itself has been diminished in any way — not one bit. Downloading a book is the same. Each of you downloads those books and studies that knowledge. Whether you use an iPad, GoodNotes, or some other software, and make countless annotations on it, if you then send those annotations back, you are actually enriching the book — the book has not decreased, but increased. Using this kind of example, you can understand: why is the self infinite? Because you have the infinite possibility of offshoots.

Seth said that the Seth who came into the human world might be born two or three times in one or more centuries, and then, in your terms, not appear again for five to ten centuries — he might even go 500 years or 1,000 years without coming again. That is to say, how often this Seth reincarnates is unfathomable in terms of our human time — he does not come every century, and he might also come many times in one century, because for them, the concept of time is different from our understanding.

However, each Seth is completely independent. Each of his incarnations in the human world is independent. And each appearance means the creation of a brand-new personality, not a new version of an old personality.

This sentence is very important. Each newly incarnated person is not an old thing that has changed its skin and come again — he is a brand-new version. Here we need to pay special attention: many people's understanding still contains a concept of "I." You tear the concept of "I" off the physical body, no longer identifying exclusively with this body, and you know there is reincarnation. But then in a flash, you slap the "I" onto that soul — so it turns out this body was not me, it turns out this soul is me. Then you say, well, the soul is not me either; the higher self is, the whole self is, the entity is. So you keep sticking this label upward. This kind of clinging thought is still determined by our three-dimensional concepts and consciousness. You think you are practicing, but actually you are just carrying around a label of self and looking everywhere for something to stick it onto. The Buddha painstakingly urged you to let go of this "I," and what do you do? You just find another place to stick it.

Seth said:

Each will be innately aware of his own potentials and background. Each knows what his blueprint is, what his potentials are, and each also knows where he stands within the whole larger background. But each is also brand-new.

Here I have used terms like "little Seth" and "miniature Seth" only to aid understanding. It is not that there really is some larger being who switches out different versions to appear. Seth here is trying to break that thing apart for you, so that you can have a correct understanding of your larger identity. He said this also applies to every reader — your own larger identity. When you want to have a fairly accurate understanding of yourself, you can reread this passage, and you will understand what Buddhism means by "no-self"². No-self does not mean the you without this physical body; it is not about letting go of the small self. If it were on that level, it would be too simple. It is that fundamentally there is no self. But everyone's understanding of this state is different, and the feelings and experiences are also different, so let us set that aside for now.

Because you are usually so concerned about and protective of what you think of as your identity, we use terms like reincarnational selves and counterparts.

Seth, in order to protect our fragile sense of identity, has no choice but to use terms like reincarnational selves, counterparts, and probable selves. Because if he tore all of these away, we probably could not accept it, and we would not continue following him — then you would ask: who is learning? If I am gone, who is learning? And who is the person studying the Seth material? This is a very subtle relationship. On the one hand, Seth has to maintain our sense of identity; on the other hand, he wants us to truly break our attachment to our sense of identity. If he really shattered your sense of identity completely, an ordinary person would collapse — he would not know who is thinking, who is feeling and experiencing, and his whole world would crumble.

If you truly understood the nature of your individuality, you would clearly see: when I say you are a unique self, that your individuality has an indestructible validity that can never be attacked; and when I also say that you are at the same time connected with other identities, each as sacred and inviolable as yourself, there is no contradiction in this.

Seth emphasized that there is no contradiction here. You feel there is a contradiction because your understanding is not yet sufficient. What he means is: I emphasize that each of you is a unique you, never capable of being destroyed, never capable of being attacked — that is the first point, to maintain your sense of identity, so you will not feel that you are insignificantly tiny in the universe. But at the same time, you are connected with a larger self, and that larger self has countless offshoots like you, each of which is sacred and inviolable. There is no contradiction between these two — you are both that larger identity and that unique, very small identity; you are both that miniature Seth and that great Seth; you are both that larger part and the very small identity you are now. You are all of them at the same time.

The Analogy of Categories and Scale

To help us understand this non-contradictory relationship, Seth gave an analogy:

You are accustomed to thinking in terms of external organizational patterns. You may at one time live in a city, a state, or a country, but you would not think that existence in one of these categories contradicts either of the other two.

For example: you now live in Tianhe District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, and Guangdong is part of China. When I say you are a person of Tianhe District, and also a person of Guangzhou City, and also a person of Guangdong Province, and also a Chinese person, there is no contradiction among these statements. Why? Because their categories are different, their scales are different, and the proportions of their spatial sizes are different. It just depends on at what scale we are speaking. When participating in United Nations activities, no one cares which province or district you are from; they only care which country you are from. When participating in Guangzhou city activities, people only ask which district you are from. When participating in provincial-level activities, people only care which city you are from. These statements certainly do not contradict one another — because the scales they are on are different, the categories are different, the sequences are different, and the organizational patterns used to discuss the matter are also different, but none of them contradict.

Seth continued:

You live within these psychic combinations, and each combination has its own characteristics. Within these combinations, every aspect, every facet has its own uniqueness. Every reincarnation, every cycle, has its own uniqueness.

You may consider yourself Italian even though you live in America; an American living in Africa still identifies as American; a Chinese person living in France still feels Chinese. You have already become a French citizen, but in your heart you still recognize yourself as Chinese — do these two identities conflict? I say you are French, and you say yes; I say you are Chinese, and you say yes. Then it depends on from which level we are speaking. From the legal level, you are French; from the level of cultural identity, you are Chinese; from the level of genetic tracing, you also carry Chinese genetic components. Each one is correct.

So Seth said:

This family of our psyche, or family of consciousness, can be thought of as nations within the psyche. When I ask what country you are from, I am not asking which country your passport is from, or which country your household registration is in. I am asking which country you yourself identify with.

What was said earlier about families of consciousness is exactly this: what is your identification with yourself, ultimately? Chinese people abroad still celebrate the Spring Festival, put up couplets, eat dumplings, and use chopsticks. Even when everyone around them uses knives and forks, they insist on using chopsticks. For example, a Chinese person likes to eat Wangzhihe fermented bean curd. To a foreigner, this is essentially no different from eating excrement — but if you say that to him, you will feel insulted, and you will say he does not understand the deliciousness of Wangzhihe. Sorry, he really cannot understand it.

Within each country, people are born in any month of the year. All those in Norway are not necessarily born in January or August. In the same way, the members of any given psychic family are scattered across the globe, following inner patterns, and that is not necessarily related to other questions currently understood.

The psychic families are distributed in various places on Earth; they are not concentrated in specific regions as you might imagine, just as the birth population of Norway cannot all be concentrated in one or two months — every month has births. The month you were born in has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are Norwegian. The country you live in and what your race is also have absolutely nothing to do with your family of consciousness.

Seth also said:

Certain families of consciousness particularly like to be born in certain months, but there are no clear rules that can be applied.

It is true that some families of consciousness have more people born in certain months, and the proportion will be higher, but there are always exceptions. Just as the probability of seeing Black people in Africa is higher, and the probability of seeing white people in Europe and America is higher, you cannot say there is not a single Black person in Europe or America, or that there is not a single white person in Africa. There is indeed an inner order and unity in this, an inner regularity and inner order, but that is not the result of laws — it is the result of spontaneous creation. The results of these creations flow into their own patterns. The pattern you see at any given moment is only a regularity you have summarized after observing phenomena. And that order itself is the result of spontaneous creation; it did not happen according to the regularity you summarized.

You Are Not a Miniature Self

Seth then spoke about the expansion of the imagination:

I am trying to stretch your imagination, and trying to help you cast off rigid concepts that really make you blind to a whole range of your own reality.

Those rigid concepts make you blind to the vast range of your own reality; you can only see the tiny bit in front of you. But biologically you are equipped to perceive far more of that reality than you currently do — on the basis of your hardware, you possess all these abilities. What is it, then? It is your rigid concepts that limit you. When you remove the rigid concepts, that reality will change for you from "unknown reality" to "known reality" — this is also what this book wants to tell you. The so-called unknown reality is entirely caused by your rigid concepts. This is also why many people, after studying the Seth material, have opened up many miraculous or special experiences: they just read the Seth books, did not do exercises, did not do meditation, and did not join any particular school or method — why did they gain this ability? Very simply, because your concepts were broken through, and your consciousness expanded.

Seth said:

You are not a miniature self attached to some super-being, never able to fully share in its reality. In those terms, you are that super-self, but seen through only one eye, or using only one finger.

You are not a tiny offshoot that can never know what that larger self is really like. You have this ability; your physical body is already prepared. Whether your body, brain, or conscious awareness, all have this ability. You are indeed perceiving, but you are perceiving using only one eye or one finger of the larger self; you are not using his entire perceptual system — but you cannot say that what this eye of yours sees is wrong, or that what this finger touches is not the world. Of course it is right; it is just that your scale is different, your category is different, your perspective is different.

You are not attached to some gigantic consciousness. Yet when I speak in these terms, I must speak of reincarnational selves and counterparts, because you are afraid that if you climbed out of what you think of as your identity, you would lose it.

You do not belong to some larger consciousness; you are you, you are that super-self, only you are using a portion of its perceptual abilities. Seth said, when I speak in these terms, I must use reincarnational selves or counterparts to help you understand, to maintain your sense of identity. If you climb out beyond the scope of your sense of identity, your greatest worry is that you will lose it.

At 10:11, Rob thought Seth's delivery was brilliant, concise and to the point, the essence of it all. In the last ten minutes he had clearly slowed down, and Seth let Jane rest. Jane said: "My God, near the very end, I got something that neither Seth nor I could put into words — Seth and I both didn't know how to say it; that thing could not be spoken. He could not find anything in my thought patterns to express what he wanted to say. I vaguely sensed him, but that was quite foreign to my psychological experience. At least at this moment I cannot recall him ever having spoken of this concept in that way in previous sessions." Rob said Jane had never had this feeling before.

After a pause, Jane said again: "Wait a minute, I'm starting to get something about him again. He has found something in my thought system that he can use to express it." She sat with her head lowered: "I'm getting a whole pile of stuff right now, and I feel embarrassed to say it." She laughed: "If I rub the spot between my two eyes — that so-called third eye thing — I can get more information." But she restrained herself, did not rub it, and did not leave her chair. But after a while she really could not stand it — when the third eye is about to open, the spot between the eyebrows feels very swollen — and she eventually rubbed it anyway. Within a few minutes she returned to a trance state, eyes closed. A few minutes later, she again transmitted Seth material, but her voice was very low, so low that it was hard to tell whether it was her own low voice or the usual Seth voice used for transmitting Seth material.

Seeing Infinity Through Numbers

Let us see whether we can express some ideas about the self in a new way.

Seth changed his approach: in Ruburt's book The Politics of the Psyche, he had taken from his own psychic library some material about official and unofficial numbers. Official numbers are the numbers we know, like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; unofficial numbers are those numbers outside our mathematical categories. Seth wanted to use numbers and mathematics to help you understand the relationship between that larger self and this self. Regarding the part about numbers, in the early sessions, probably in the third volume, there was a session specifically devoted to it — not much, but among all the many sessions there was only that one session on mathematics. Only a small portion is excerpted here.

Within a given number series, between each official number — as Ruburt saw — there is truly infinite space.

Within a given number series, such as the integer series 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, between 1 and 2 there is infinite space — 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and also 1.11, 1.1101, 1.0002 — is that not infinite possibility? Yes. So you say, in such a series extending from 1 all the way to infinity, the interval between any two numbers is actually infinitely small. For an infinitely large series, the distance between 1 and 2, and the distance between 1,497,660,000 and 1,499,000,000, are both infinitely small. But you can also understand that between these two infinitely small numbers, there is again infinitely large space. Seth used only this simple example to help you understand what is meant by "so small it has no inside, so large it has no outside" — the infinitely small is the infinitely large, and there is nothing incongruous in this. It looks like a paradox, but it is not.

In the same way, the most infinitesimal self is infinite. And the most finite self, extended to the limits of himself, is infinite.

Suppose that larger you has countless offshoots: reincarnational yous, probable yous, counterpart yous, and you are only one of them. Relative to that larger you, those infinitely many offshoots all seem incomparably tiny. But even the most infinitesimal you among those infinitely many tiny offshoots itself contains the infinitely large. For a finite self, life is of course finite, but when you bring your potentials to their utmost and extend yourself to your own limits, you can create countless probable selves — and that again is an infinite possibility of your own. So when this most finite self develops itself to the extreme, it too is infinite.

Each of you is a part of an infinite self. And that infinite self, within your own reality, appears as a series of finite selves.

The so-called "series selves" are a whole string of reincarnations, and within that, each one has several counterparts, and each counterpart has probable selves, parallel space-time existences. Depending on the angle from which you look, different distributions, different angles, the series also differ. But beneath this material level that we can perceive, in that part you do not perceive, every finite self is expanding its own limits, expanding itself into a kind of infinity.

This would give those books a very good idea.

Seth said this was a good idea suggestion for that book -- he probably meant the book The Integrity of the Psyche.

There are different kinds of infinities, and different kinds of psychological infinities that do not meet.

Infinities are not all the same; infinity comes in many kinds. You cannot say that just because they are all called infinity, they mean the same thing. They represent different psychological infinities. "Do not meet" means these two kinds of psychological infinity have no intersection in the directions in which they each develop. Use the earlier number-series example to help us understand: a series of integers is infinite, from 1 all the way to infinity -- whatever number you name, I can name a larger one. That is one kind of infinity, a quantitative infinity. But between the numbers 3 and 4 there is also an infinity -- within an infinitely small range there is an infinite existence. Yet the infinity that exists within this infinitely small range is not in the same category as the infinity of the integer series; it is not the same kind of infinity.

To put it more plainly: as a spiritual being, you have infinite possibilities of development; that is the first kind of infinity. But you can develop in different spaces -- on a planet so many light-years away. Is that still within a three-dimensional space-time? You might still intersect, right. The second kind: you can, in the next kind, say you develop in different dimensions -- you develop in this dimension, he develops in that dimension. Between probable selves living in different dimensional spaces, there is very little intersection, or even no intersection. Although at a larger level of consciousness they do intersect, in their own separate developmental directions there is no longer any intersection. This is the different kinds of psychological infinities.

As long as you believe that as an individual you belong to any series, then in your own eyes you are finite. But when you can understand that you can be any series, then you are infinite.

When you think you belong to one member of a series of reincarnations, then you are also finite -- no matter how many reincarnations there are, there is still a limit. You say, I belong to Earth; no matter how it evolves, is it not still within Earth? Still finite.

You think in terms of linear time, and when trying to imagine your deeper reality, at most you can only consider incarnations within time.

Because we think in linear time, when we think we have a deeper reality, we can only imagine it through reincarnation, because we still cannot imagine the quality of "simultaneous existence." Our view of time is so rigid that we have no choice but to use reincarnation to understand that greater reality -- but in that greater reality there is no reincarnation. This is a matter of the focus of consciousness: when you put your focus on the axis of time, then it is reincarnation; when you move your focus away from the axis of time's one-way movement, all of it happens simultaneously.

The Inward Infinity

Seth said:

You usually identify with your own exterior, and with the exterior of the world.

To put it bluntly, you identify with the scale of your body. You are now around a meter and a half tall, whether male or female, around that scale. The scale of human cognition is basically within this range, give or take a few orders of magnitude. Taking meters as the unit, the next order of magnitude above is tens of meters, and the next below is decimeters, centimeters, millimeters, and further down micrometers, nanometers. Generally speaking, the scale humans can perceive is basically ten to the positive or negative fifteenth power of their own scale. Ten to the negative fifteenth power is the scale of the atomic nucleus; ten to the positive fifteenth power is roughly a range of several hundred billion to several trillion kilometers, basically the scale of our solar system. Beyond that, humans can still see it, but basically cannot physically go there.

For example, you usually do not identify with the inside of your body, including your organs, let alone cells and atoms. But in that direction, a certain kind of infinity exists.

Your consciousness itself can do so, but because you have the limitation of an outer physical body, limited by this physical body, you only pay attention to things on a scale close to this body size. The equipment, instruments, and tools humans build are all within a limited scale -- all tens of meters, hundreds of meters; things over a thousand meters are rarely built. With the Hubble telescope and electron microscopes you can see larger and smaller things, but with the naked eye, your basic range is limited. Things larger or smaller than this scale are not part of that category, not part of that series.

If you are willing to identify with your own psychic reality, and follow the inward structure of thoughts and feelings, you will discover an inward psychological infinity.

If you can perceive inwardly, you will discover an inner world, an inner structure, and this inner psychological structure is itself infinite. The ant's world, the bacterial world, the atomic world, and our world are not the same; our world and the world seen from a larger perspective are also not the same -- let alone the perceptions and feelings in those worlds in higher dimensions. That is another scale, another series.

These infinities, of course, extend into both an infinite past and an infinite future. But true infinity extends far beyond past and future, and into all probabilities -- not just straight forward or backward in time.

True infinity, in our three-dimensional world, is not only an infinite past and infinite future -- at every point of past and future, it has infinite possibilities. Merely transcending time is still not infinity: you can move forward or backward in time to explore future and past, but that is only a certain degree of infinity. A greater degree of infinity is this: at every point that extends infinitely toward the future and infinitely toward the past, there are infinite possibilities. Infinity multiplied by infinity -- this has actually risen by one dimension.

In every moment that you recognize, there is an infinity. Just as numerically, behind any prime number you know -- such as 397863 and so on -- behind and within it there is also an infinity.

Prime numbers are indivisible: apart from 1 and itself, it cannot be divided evenly by any integer. For example, 97 can only be divided by 1 to get 97, or divided by 97 to get 1. So you think prime numbers are finite; each prime number can only be evenly divided by these two numbers. But Seth says, behind and within this number there is also an infinity. This "infinity" is put in quotation marks.

Simply put, when we see "1," it is just a 1. But have you ever looked inside the 1? What is inside 1? 1 can be made up of two halves, or ten 0.1s -- going on like this, 1 can be composed in infinite ways. Have you ever considered what 1 actually is? That is the inside of 1. Then what is the back of 1? Think of 1 as a coin; suppose the number 1 stands in front of you and you see it as 1. I ask you: what does this 1 represent? Can you define it? What is one? When you can properly consider this question, you can imagine that behind this 1 there is a string of hazy, overlapping "1"s, all nested at the same time upon this 1.

This 1 represents different meanings in different places: it can be one person, or one tree; in mathematics, 1 also carries different meanings in different positions. Then what does this 1 itself actually mean? To define it, don't you have to include all the possible, infinite meanings of this 1 before you can accurately say what this 1 represents? That is to say, all the possibilities of this 1 -- that infinite possibility -- are what can be called the connotation of "1." From this angle, you can look inside any number, or behind it. Seth uses this analogy to help you understand what he means by "infinity." He does not expand on it because he does not intend to elaborate. Through this analogy, what he wants to tell you is this: each of us is like one element in the integer series -- perhaps a very tiny one in that series, but you yourself also possess infinity.

Other Mathematical Systems

Seth shifted his angle:

You have your own infinite versions, each version, but no version negates the others. And every version is connected with the others, and they help and support one another.

Apart from these, there are other mathematical systems that are quite valid and legitimate, but which you cannot follow.

There are many mathematical systems in the world, not only the one you people think exists. Many mathematicians say the universe has only one set of mathematics, that mathematics is the language of the universe, and all alien beings should use mathematics -- using mathematics may be true, but why must it be your human mathematics? Saying that the mathematics invented by humans is the language of the universe is ridiculous. How do you know ants do not have their own mathematics? Without mathematics or knowledge, how could they build ant nests with such complex structure? Without studying mechanics and engineering, ant nests still do not collapse and can maintain ventilation, and their ventilation design far surpasses that of humans. In the desert, those anthills like small mounds contain extremely fine and precise ventilation systems that can automatically form upward air passages like chimneys, expelling hot air, keeping the temperature and humidity inside the ant nest just right for reproduction. Only now have humans begun to imitate the architectural patterns of ant nests, using nature's air circulation to cool buildings. Not to mention birds that migrate thousands of kilometers -- what do they use for positioning? Fish that swim thousands of kilometers upstream against the current to spawn -- think about it, do all these really have nothing to do with mathematics?

Ruburt can jump back and forth among different mathematical series, obtaining information from this series and bringing it to another. The most amazing thing is that these two series belong to two different mathematical systems -- one analogy to understand it: one is ant mathematics, the other is human mathematics. Ruburt has this ability.

Seth says none of these are removed from your normal life. You might say these things are too far away, what do they have to do with my normal life? He says no, these all have something to do with your normal life, whether you think about them or not.

Ruburt and Joseph have both learned to connect the material, so it involves the simple action of moving from one house to another, and the hints become obvious. Seth gives a simple example: Ruburt and Joseph just wanted to move house, to buy a house. In such a simple act, the simple action of moving from one house to another, how many things that you regard as coincidences were involved? Actually, all of those were the inner connections.

In Rob's later note, he mentioned that at least more than 40 people were involved. Their purchase of the house, seemingly inconsequential, involved at least more than 40 people, and the list is still growing. As long as you carefully observe, you will find the people and events involved are very remarkable.

They are not mathematicians; neither Ruburt nor Jane would use statistics to analyze this result, nor would they use statistics to analyze how great the probability of such an event is, or how strange it is. But --

In your daily life, the actions you take do indeed have endless effects, and I am not using the word "endless" casually.

Seth indeed rarely uses the word "endless," but here he did. He is not using the word as literary embellishment; he wants to tell you that every action brings endless effects, and this is real.

Rob's Note: The House and Forty Connections

Rob said:

About what Seth said concerning Jane's and my simple action of moving from one house to another, this also included all the other people involved. In the preceding five sessions, I inserted as much information as possible about the house and our buying the house and moving, and I also pointed out in this way what concretely manifested for us in this range. Regarding these interrelationships, our list so far includes more than 40 items, and it continues to grow. However, many of these are composed of several related events, people, and so forth, so if we chose to do so, we could reasonably subdivide them further.

Rob says this moving house, buying a house, and relocating involved more than 40 major and minor threads, and they can be subdivided further. If he continued tracing downward, there would be even more possibilities in it. But he did not trace further.

Jane and I do not all classify the factors that made up our house adventure as coincidence -- because they clearly are not coincidence; they can no longer be explained by coincidence. At the same time, they do not intend to do anything with these events statistically. This couple is interesting: they will neither do any mathematical or statistical analysis, nor will they think these are all coincidences.

There are so many variables on the scene that for each person involved, individual analysis is needed. And within each factor, boundaries have been set -- for example, the number of items to be considered. Then how do you define the boundary of time? Indeed, for me, the origin of the whole house affair goes back to my early childhood, more than half a century ago. But Jane, being younger, would indicate a quite different time limit.

Rob says regarding the people and events involved in this house, the possible versions and variations are numerous. Every variable could have caused the house purchase to fail. Suppose he had the ability to consider all the variables, then how would he consider the time variable? Because in Seth's terms, his purchase of this house carried a kind of regression to his childhood -- the house he lived in as a child was a house similar to this one, and from childhood he had a connection to that house.

If all the events of these fifty-plus years were considered, and all these variations were considered, it would be an impossible project.

Now I would like to ask a question: after each individual analysis is done, is it possible to combine them all into a comprehensive mother population? I think such a scheme would be monumental, and in itself would use up at least one book.

Rob means that after summarizing all these possible threads related to the house, and analyzing each person's behavior -- for example, why this agent said this, why he did that, why he showed them this house -- after analyzing all these possibilities, can they be synthesized into a whole? Is there behind it a general law or general operating mechanism? Rob says that even analyzing just the purchase of the house might not be fully explainable in one book.

The two of them took a 30-minute break, each ate a little something, and at 11:06 p.m. Seth continued, using Christmas tree lights for a very good analogy.

The Christmas Tree Lights Analogy

Seth said:

Imagine a string of Christmas tree lights of different colors.

Christmas tree lights flash -- behind them there is a very small program controller that determines how the string of lights flashes. It is programmed: when one light is off, another light is on; when that one is off, this one is on.

In such an example as we are imagining, there are many of these strings of lights.

Not just one string, but many strings of lights, all colored, with different-colored bulbs, flashing continuously. When this one is on, that one goes off; when that one is off, this one is on. And when a light on one string goes off, it almost automatically appears on another string. Seen from a distance, this Christmas tree is twinkling and glowing.

Seth says, generally speaking, all the lights on any string are on, except for those that occasionally go out. Suppose we do not let them flash; if they are all lit, then they stay on.

Now --

Pretend you are very tiny, pretend you are a tiny creature smaller than an ant, and that you move small and slowly across this tree, so that at one time you see only one light. Then it appears as if each light exists in front of another, and each, to your focus, is so brilliant that it blots out the lights before and after it.

Suppose you are a tiny creature smaller than an ant, crawling along the wires of the light string on this Christmas tree, crawling very slowly. To you, the light in front of you is so brilliant -- its brightness is simply too bright for an ant. It cannot see the lights behind it at all, nor the other lights ahead of it; it can only see this one light in front of it.

Still, you may have a hazy memory of the light you think you saw; maybe when crawling across this tree you saw other lights. Then you would think: the lamp I see is my life, but I am sure long ago I had a different life, and perhaps another life is still ahead of me.

But unless you step back far enough from the tree, you will not realize that the whole string of lights exists simultaneously. You will also not understand that when a light goes out in one string, it reappears in another string elsewhere on the tree.

Only when you step far enough away from the Christmas tree, to ten or twenty meters away, can you see that all the lights on the tree are on. But as an ant, you can only see the one light in front of you, vaguely sensing there are lights behind and ahead, yet truly unable to see all these lights shining simultaneously. Unless you change your angle, unless your field of view is much larger than before.

Previously as an ant, what you saw was real to you; it was your world. If at that time the ant had human consciousness and stood at a distance looking at this Christmas tree, it would not think the flashing on and off of one light bulb is your whole life; it would just think this is one string of lights on a Christmas tree.

We can understand this example more deeply: suppose this light is on for five seconds and off for three seconds. To an ant, those five seconds are its whole life -- from crawling up to the light as it turns on, to the light going out. Its single reincarnation is this one turning on and off of the bulb. It only focuses on the one in front of it; it can vaguely feel there is a past life behind and future lives ahead, but it cannot see them clearly.

But we humans, now in the three-dimensional world, are like this ant crawling along the wire of the string of lights. This string of lights represents all our reincarnations in the material world, probable selves, and counterparts. At the same time, we still have other lives and experiences in other dimensions.

So from the ant's perspective and from the human's perspective, looking at these Christmas lights, the feeling is completely different. When you are at the ant's tiny scale, your understanding of life is completely different from your understanding of life at the human scale, and from your understanding of life when one day you become that greater self. Yet each is real, and each has its infinite possibilities and infinite creativity; they do not erase one another.

Now if you were even smaller, if you went down to the atomic scale, then any given bulb itself might seem to have no stable light source at all.

When you reach a very tiny microscopic scale, you no longer see light; you see electromagnetic waves -- light itself is electromagnetic waves. You will identify your life with any given wave. When you are an ant, you identify with the bulb in front of you; when you are even smaller, you identify with the electromagnetic wave being emitted. When the electromagnetic wave rises, you have life; when the electromagnetic wave disappears, you have no life.

Thus between one wave and the next wave, you can perceive a very large distance. Between one life and the next life, you can feel this span is very large. But actually, if you view it from a distance, this series of waves all exist simultaneously, interweaving and reflecting one another.

If light is electromagnetic waves, then the brilliant multicolored light emitted by this Christmas tree is an electromagnetic field, a very large field. But you cannot feel the existence of the field; you can only feel one wave rise and disappear, then another wave rise. You cannot see the field; you can only see the existence of the waves.

Seth's example is actually very good, but he did not expand on it -- you cannot see the existence of this overall field of consciousness, this consciousness-in-itself; you can only feel the existence of consciousness waves, or the existence of the focus of consciousness. Each consciousness wave has a fixed frequency. Your cognition of a certain wave means you respond to a particular frequency of the consciousness wave. In other words, you respond only to a certain focus of consciousness.

As humans, within our three-dimensional space-time cognition, we have no way to feel the existence of the whole Christmas tree as a complete field. We can only feel, on the scale of time, that one wave comes and goes, and then another wave of another frequency comes. You identify with waves of different frequencies and experience different lives. Each frequency of wave represents a different kind of life. Your true, greater self is a field of consciousness -- it is superimposed and blended together.

Infinity Within Different Scales

Seth said:

Experiencing that kind of series leads to entirely different kinds of perception.

When you sense at different scales -- from the ant's angle, from the human's angle, from the electromagnetic wave's angle -- it is equivalent to sensing within different series. Electromagnetic waves count as one series, visible light counts as one series, Christmas tree lights count as one series. Different series mean your mode of perception is different.

This sentence is very key:

In it, infinity exists within its own scale.

Seth paused a lot within this passage, and then said "this scale" means -- that series will have its own kind of infinity; each series has its own particular infinity.

Actually it is very easy to understand. The so-called infinite -- what he wants to tell you here is: the true you is infinite, yet you are also finite. How can this concept be understood? It is different from the point of view of scale -- on one scale, it seems finite; on another scale, it is infinite. That is, within its own scale, its infinity exists. Once it leaves that scale, this infinity no longer exists.

Returning to the earlier concept of the integer series: when I say there is no decimal point, then between one and two there is no infinity; they are tightly connected, with no space. But in the real world, between one and two there is endless space for existence -- how much space is there between one and two? It is infinite. Therefore between one and two, on a scale that includes decimal points, they have infinity. Leave that scale, and there is no infinity.

For the ant, each reincarnation in its life -- the flashing on and off of this bulb -- is completely beyond its control. What it faces is an infinite possibility and change. For humans, all of this is under program control -- the program controller in front of the Christmas lights has four programs, and you can switch to whichever one you like. So this infinity is infinite only within its own scale; beyond this scale, it is finite.

A tree can be wrapped with strings of lights, and each light has its own particular series of wave values. The people who decorated the tree may have been dazzled on one Christmas Eve. At the same time, other consciousnesses tuned to other series can experience endless ages, and their perception is just as valid and effective as that of those who put up the Christmas tree and admired its lights.

In plain words: a group of people decorated a Christmas tree, admired its lights from a distance, and spent a beautiful evening. The next day the power was switched off and the lights were gone. To us, these lights flashed for only one evening. But if there were a creature whose consciousness is as tiny as an ant's, crawling even slower than an ant -- suppose for it five seconds are a lifetime -- then this one warm moment that is just a Christmas Eve for humans would be experienced by this tiny-scale creature as countless lifetimes.

There is a Chinese saying, "A day in heaven, a year on earth"³, and this is exactly the principle. Because the scales are different; it is not that one is much more advanced than the other, nor that one is lower; there is no such concept. It can only be said that their scales are different.

Every lamp has its own particular wave. Suppose you became smaller and only responded to waves, then in one evening how many times would this Christmas tree change waves? Impossible to calculate. So for a little creature for whom each wave is a lifetime, this one evening is already countless cycles of reincarnation. In Buddhist terms, who knows how many kalpas have passed -- one kalpa is roughly over sixty thousand years⁴. Many people do not understand "wan jie bu fu" (never recover through ten thousand kalpas), thinking that "jie" means calamity; "wan jie" means time, and ten thousand kalpas is over six hundred million years⁵. In any case, it represents a very, very long time.

Seth says:

This may not necessarily be the best analogy, but I want to point out this point, that is, awareness at all different scales contains its own infinity, no matter how limited they may appear.

This sentence is also crucial. Do not think about how small an ant is; at the ant's own small scale, it has its own infinity. This sentence is actually an interpretation of the previous sentence: infinity exists within its own scale. Do not look from another scale at how limited or how tiny it is; within its own scale, it is infinite.

Between the numbers one and two, in the sequence of integers, it is such an insignificant, such an infinitesimally small thing, yet within such a small space, there still exist infinite possibilities.

To put it more bluntly, he wants to illustrate a principle: the greatest exists within the smallest, and the smallest also exists within the greatest. There is no absolute largeness, and no absolute smallness; there are only different scales of experience.

Therefore, our cognition becomes very important:

The so-called soul has nothing to do with size or duration in space and time.

The soul has nothing to do with these. Except insofar as they combine within those categories in order to experience -- the soul can enter our space-time, or it can refrain from entering our space-time, but the soul is not measured by the largeness or smallness of the material form it manifests when entering our space-time, nor by the length of time it stays within our space-time.

You can replace "soul" with "consciousness." When consciousness enters our three-dimensional world, it can manifest as our human body, or it can become an ant, or it can become an atom -- all things have consciousness. We cannot define this consciousness by the physical size and the physical length or brevity, largeness or smallness, of what it manifests, because within their own categories, they all possess infinite possibilities.

When this consciousness wants to experience in the three-dimensional world and becomes an ant, and this ant can only live six months -- then these six months do have length and brevity. But this is only a focal existence of this consciousness as an ant in the three-dimensional world; this is not the whole of this soul or this consciousness. It is only a product of this one point where this consciousness intersects with space-time in the three-dimensional world.

Do not use the things manifested in this three-dimensional world -- our bodies, this person we are, our own limited experiences -- to speculate about the infinite possibilities of this soul or this larger consciousness, this larger self. We cannot use our own limited perspective to understand its infinite vastness. But from our own perspective, we are not limited either; we ourselves are also infinite, only we have not seen our own infinity.

All right, the interpretation of this part basically ends here. Seth then dictated:

You may take a break, or end the session.

Then they took a break. As it turned out, after they sat and waited for five minutes, Jane said, "All right, I guess that is it." Nothing more came afterward, and the session ended just like that.

You can actually feel that Seth really had nothing left to say. He had already spoken to this extent, so how else could he speak? Things at different scales -- he had already been able to explain them to you to this extent, and there was no way to go further -- because after all, you are not at the same scale as he is. Although you have a higher scale, a larger scale, you have not yet activated such awareness. Within awareness at different scales, you have only activated this tiny awareness at the level of your physical world; you have not activated the larger awareness. Just as Seth said earlier, the scale of your conscious space is measured by this, so how can you understand other scales, whether larger or smaller? So Seth had exhausted his talents and did not know how to speak further.

Yet Rob was still not resigned, and still wanted him to say more. Seth did not know how to speak any further either, and the session ended just like that.

Rob's Earlier Notes

What follows are all notes. The first note concerns the inner blueprint of reality, which has been mentioned several times; if you are not familiar with it, you can go back and look at Session 696.

Note three: the question of the third eye. In all these sessions, Jane had only once before mentioned this third eye of occult legend, and that was in Session 621 on September 6, 1972. She was a little embarrassed at the time -- see the excerpts from Session 621 in Appendix Nineteen. In that note, Rob said she might have possessed some intuitive knowledge that led her to speak of the third eye at that time. Rob also said: "Once again I had the same kind of problem, and did not want to investigate them." Rob said that Jane had certainly obtained some intuitive knowledge and wanted to speak about the third eye, but Rob said: "I did not want to ask about it." So you can see Rob's attitude here is quite interesting -- he did not want to discuss more about the third eye, and so he never asked about it again.

Note four: they believed that Seth in this passage of material, as well as Jane in some material in Psychic Politics, was very likely drawing on new forms of mathematics they had read about earlier that month. These contained some concepts that were in fact already many centuries old -- mathematics is not a simple concept; it already has a history of several thousand years. But what was involved was all very interesting: quantum theories of time, infinite numbers within numbers, as well as decimals, smallest numbers, paradigm theory, and other such nonstandard approaches, along with other mathematical tools. This couple even studied mathematics in their spare time; their range of interests was extremely broad.

At least as far as understanding these ideas, Jane and Seth, proceeding in their own personally creative way, in Chapter 19 of Psychic Politics, Jane transcribed a portion from her psychic library:

If you imagine the official series of numbers from one to ten, then within the one that you see, there are hidden countless unofficial ones.

We will not expand on this. Seth gave a vivid example: imagine that behind the one there still stand countless ones, and none of those countless ones is the one at the very front. The one at the very front is the true one that we humans recognize, the officially recognized one, and behind it still stands a string of ones, but you cannot see them; those are all unofficial ones. And between the official one and two, there is a space of infinite number. The "one" written on paper represents the data world of our senses; at the same time, those invisible ones behind the official data represent the infinite possibilities of the hidden value of the official one.

Jane has a psychic library, and she often excerpts content from it -- this is not Seth material; it is her own, coming from things in other spaces of consciousness. You can roughly understand that how people in other higher dimensions view numbers is not the same as how we do.

Also, applying numbers to the discussion of time is very important:

But just as there are unrecognized spaces between numbers, so between moments there are unrecognized, psychologically invisible spaces. And certain events of our bodies are too small for us to follow, because we concentrate our focus upon our main series. These bodies are actually infinitely small, yet infinitely follow their own patterns, which are mixed together with our patterns.

This sentence can be understood on two levels. The first level: we apply numbers to our time, and our time is all related to numbers -- what hour, what minute, what second. But he says, between this second and the next second, are there not infinite possibilities, an infinitely large time within them? Yes. Between one moment and the next is infinite -- if you can understand the infinity of numbers, you can also understand the infinity of time; it is the same meaning.

The second level: the cells of our bodies are too small, and we cannot keep up with their experiences and their perceptions. But the activities at the cellular level are mixed together with the activities at our human scale; they are not unrelated. Our bodily activities cannot be separated from the functioning of our cells; they are intimately connected. The two modes of operation at different scales -- the cellular scale and the human activity scale -- are fused together, and only then do we have the world we now inhabit.

What we call larger scales and smaller scales do not exist as an unbridgeable chasm between them; rather, they are nested within one another. Just as Seth said earlier, that smaller you is not an insignificant existence of the larger you; it can be understood as a certain part of the larger you -- one of its fingers, or one of its eyes. The world seen by one eye and the world perceived by this larger consciousness are mixed together; it is not that one is right and the other is wrong. The patterns of your cellular activity and the patterns of your body's normal movement do not conflict with each other; they are fused together.

The House Connections (Continued)

Note six, concerning the house connections:

That kind of connection is a good example, and it was not only composed of several related factors, but also extended over a longer period of time. Because of those combined factors, I added this note in October 1975, six months after Seth finished dictating Volume 2 of The "Unknown" Reality. All the names of the people in it have been changed.

He changed all the names, but he recorded the matter:

When Jane and I decided to buy that house on the hillside, we discovered that the neighbor of this house on the west side, that family, was also about to sell.

Then not long after we moved into this hillside house, our newly acquainted neighbor on the east side, Frank, told us that he knew Louis Akin. Who was this Louis? He was one of the first batch of students who had attended Jane's ESP class⁶ in September 1967, truly one of the earliest ESP class students.

Elmira is a city of nearly fifty thousand people⁷, neither very large nor very small, and it is also surrounded by smaller communities of roughly similar population. Therefore, they wanted to add Frank's information to the list of their house connections in this interesting little matter -- because Frank knew a person named Louis, and Louis was one of the students in Jane's early ESP class, so Rob felt that Frank had a certain connection with them. But he did not know what the connection was, so he just added him in.

But this matter did not end there; it was only a beginning. Frank was also engaged in real estate buying and selling, and was also a broker. Although he had no professional connection with the Johnsons, Debbie, or the purchase of the hillside house through another real estate company, still --

The house to our west also became vacant early this summer. In the autumn, Frank was given the job of selling that house.

Frank was the neighbor on the east side when Rob and Jane moved into this new house on the hillside, and the house on the west side became vacant and was to be sold. Frank happened to be a real estate broker, so he was commissioned to sell the house on the west side. Very quickly, it was sold to a couple named Miller, who had moved here from a distant state.

Second, Jane and I learned from Mrs. Miller that Mrs. Miller also knew Louis Akin.

Amazing, right? The neighbor on the west side moved away, the house was sold, and the sale was also made through Frank, and Frank knew Louis -- that was one coincidence. And the newly arrived couple who had moved from a distant state also knew Louis, and Louis was a student from Jane's early sessions.

It was not over yet. The Millers had lived several years earlier in a neighborhood very close to this hillside house, and it was at that time that they had met Louis. Then they moved out of New York State, and after a few years came back and bought the house next door to them.

The factor of coincidence here is simply too great; it really cannot be described merely as "coincidence." This person was not a local; he had only lived there for a period of time and met such a person, then moved to another state, then moved back, and by sheer coincidence ended up living right next door to Jane. The two neighbors on the left and right: Frank on the east knew Louis, and the Millers on the west, after moving back in, also knew Louis.

However, the house connection is still unique. Because Jane and I, in that hillside house, found that we were sandwiched on both east and west by people who knew someone from her early sessions.

Both his neighbors on the left and right knew a student from their early sessions named Louis, and this student had also mentioned Jane to them, feeling that Jane was quite extraordinary.

Interestingly, Frank brought the Millers back to this neighborhood they preferred -- they had lived there before, and after a few years came back. Although in a city the size of Elmira, in popular neighborhoods, there are always some houses for sale at any given time. Among so many houses to choose from, why did the Millers choose this particular one?

Jane and I clearly did not think that Frank and Mrs. Miller knowing Louis was the reason the Millers moved next door to them -- although it was one factor that could be considered among countless other factors, such as money, timing, and so on. First of all, why did Jane and I move into a neighborhood where such house connections might develop? Why were the two people on the left and right both people who knew a student from her early sessions? Why was Frank assigned to sell the house next door to them? There were many brokers to choose from; why was a person who knew a student from Jane's early sessions chosen? Why did the Millers happen to meet him at that particular time? Why did they know this Frank as their real estate broker?

The timing was also very magical: if you missed this point in time, the house might have been sold to someone else. Why, just when this house was about to be sold, did he happen to encounter it? And the one he encountered happened to be this broker, who happened to be selling this house, and it was sold to him? Among all the real estate brokers, why did he successfully sell it to the Millers?

This kind of connection and these questions, regardless of their force and regardless of the conscious or unconscious motives behind them, are a very interesting subject for study.

Once again, they could not help recalling Seth's material at 11:25 in Session 737:

People who move are in league with one another.

That is to say, when one person wants to move, another person will move away to make room for them; they have arranged it with each other beforehand. So the neighbor on the west moved away not long after they moved in, and only then could the house on the west become vacant and be sold to the Millers.

Rob added:

I should add that our neighbor Frank was also involved in other house connections related to Jane and me, some of which were just as interesting as the one just described.

But since they have little bearing on this book, he did not go on.

So you see, in a very ordinary matter of moving house, how many inner connections there are. This kind of coincidence has reached a point that is unimaginable.

Note seven: Rob said that Seth's concepts in this passage and the previous one are consistent with his concepts in several sessions in Volume 1 -- you can look at Sessions 681 to 684. In Volume 1 of this book, Sessions 681 and 684 are important sessions, occupying a position like the heart of the book, very crucial sessions. Then Rob mentioned that in Volume 3, there is Note 15 for Session 775 in Appendix Ten. But there may be some misunderstanding here -- The "Unknown" Reality has only two volumes, and where Volume 3 came from is unknown; and there is no Session 775 either, because Volume 2 already ends at Session 744.

Note eight: in retrospect, one can see how Jane the mystic was always trying to penetrate the nature of reality through her art. They had shown Jane's early poems at appropriate points in the two volumes of The "Unknown" Reality to illustrate that learning process.

Jane's mystical quality existed long before; it was not something that only appeared after contact with Seth. In Note 4 of Session 681 in Volume 1, Rob mentioned Jane's pursuit of the spontaneity of understanding -- a spontaneous, guided pursuit directed toward this mystical quality. At that stage, it included three lines from her poem "More Than Human," which she wrote in 1954 when she was twenty-five years old⁸, the year they were married.

Jane married at twenty-five, and the Seth material began nine years later -- when Jane was thirty-four, in 1963, the Seth material began to be transmitted⁹. Nine years earlier, look at the poem she wrote; at that time neither of them knew what channeling was or what it meant to channel. As Jane recently said, this spiritual thing had always been in the poetry, only she did not understand it.

The title of this poem is "More Than Human," and the name is very interesting:

More than human, Have walked these shores in broad banks. More than our magic, Has raised fine altars. The earth is full of songs not sung by us. And all around are worlds we have not shared, not felt, And other worlds exist. Between each tick within the clock, In universes hidden beyond our universe. In the vanishing of long centuries -- And the eternity of our time, Drifting shorter than one evening or one night rolled by the wind.

We will not interpret this poem, but you can understand that when Jane was twenty-five, this mystical nature had already begun to show itself, only she herself did not know what it was saying. Many times she could write it out, but she did not know what it meant. It was only later, twenty-one years afterward, that she roughly understood why within a moment there still exists eternal time.

Teacher Xiyu's Interpretation

Session 740: The Finite and Infinite Selves, Seth's Larger Reality, and the Analogy of the Christmas Tree Lights

---

注释与核实

1. This claim could not be verified. ↩

2. This claim could not be verified. ↩

3. This claim could not be verified. ↩

4. This claim could not be verified. ↩

5. This claim could not be verified. ↩

6. This claim could not be verified. ↩

7. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Number of Inhabitants (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1940/population-volume-1/33973538v1ch07.pdf) ↩

8. Source: Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts, The “Unknown” Reality: Volume Two (https://nowdictation.com/q/poem/60/) ↩

9. Source: Seth Center, The Early Sessions (https://sethcenter.com/the-early-sessions/) ↩