Mike's commentary · The Way Toward Health, Chapter 9

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

Introduction

This chapter revolves around the idea that the multiple "yous" within a person hold different or even opposing purposes and beliefs, explaining that contradictory beliefs in areas such as self-expression, initiative, power, and knowledge can cause physical, mental, and emotional difficulties, such as illness, epilepsy, stuttering, stomach ulcers, and so on. It also points out that beliefs are merely tools and should not be judged simply as good or bad; changing beliefs from the present moment can improve health and life. This chapter also concludes the first part of the book, "Dilemmas."

Key Points of This Chapter

• Within a person there are often several "yous" with different purposes existing at the same time, canceling each other out or standing in opposition, which can bring difficulties mentally, physically, and emotionally.
• Self-expression is seen both as necessary and as dangerous; this contradiction forms a dilemma, and manifests through financial, physical, and other means.
• Contradictory beliefs about power, action, and knowledge are related to physical symptoms such as epilepsy, stuttering, and stomach ulcers.
• Beliefs themselves are tools and should not simply be divided into good or bad; negative beliefs may also clear the way for beneficial beliefs.
• Changing your beliefs from the present moment can improve health and life; this concludes the first part of the book, "Dilemmas."

Main Text

The Self in Contradiction

The title of Chapter Nine is very interesting: You, You, You, and You, Living in Self-Contradiction. So many "yous" -- all of them are yous holding different viewpoints and carrying different purposes. These yous with different purposes are sometimes consistent, not twisted or contradictory; but more often, these yous holding different purposes and different beliefs contradict one another. And this contradiction may bring about unfavorable changes in the body, and may also bring about effects in other areas -- this is the theme of this chapter.

This part begins on Tuesday, May 29, 1984, at 4 p.m. Seth came through and first said: "I bid you a good afternoon." Rob and the others responded: "Good afternoon, Seth." Then Seth gave the title of the next chapter: "You, You, You, and You, Living in Self-Contradiction."

He paused for a long while, then continued:

Each individual is so unique that I obviously cannot discuss all of the differences that form human experience -- all of the innumerable and highly complex beliefs that form all human experience. Here, however, I hope to set forth, in a certain fashion, a generalization clear enough. Remember, it is a generalization, it is not aimed at any particular individual. So that you, the readers, may find many points of application in terms of your own lives.

That is to say, look at these generalized contents, and in terms of your own lives, see what can be used, what points apply.

In fact, you may discover not just one you, but several yous -- so to speak, each one pursuing some purpose. And you may further discover that some of these purposes cancel each other out, while some stand in opposition to each other. Naturally, such opposing purposes can lead to certain difficulties mentally, physically, and emotionally.

Each you with a different purpose -- for example, one you that wants to make money, one that wants to lie flat, one that wants to study hard, one that wants to slack off -- each of these "yous" is a you holding a different viewpoint or a different purpose. Some of them cancel each other out, for instance, the you that wants to lie flat is canceled out by the you that goes to school; some of them stand in opposition to each other, for instance, some people say with their mouths that they want to make money, but in actual practice, they have fear toward wealth, they are afraid of making money, afraid of having money. This kind of completely opposite and opposing emotion may lead to difficulties mentally, physically, and emotionally -- remember, not only mentally and emotionally, but also physically.

Many people believe that it is dangerous to stand out and express their own ideas and abilities. Do not stand out, often go along with the crowd, be a nice person, and even if you have your own ideas, do not speak them -- this is a very typical phenomenon. They think this is an advantage of having more social experience, being more tactful, and being better at handling things, but in fact this is very dangerous. They are afraid to express themselves, they do not want the shot to hit the bird that sticks out its head.

On the other hand, such an individual may very actively desire to achieve distinction in some artistic profession or other field of activity. On one hand he is afraid of being the bird that gets shot, and on the other hand he is willing to achieve distinction in an artistic profession or other field of activity -- tell me how painful that is. In such cases, two opposing purposes are in operation: one the desire to express himself, the other the fear of doing so, both existing at the same time. Jane had exactly this problem, so in this situation, her body would develop symptoms.

If both beliefs are equally dominant and indispensable, if both are very strong and evenly matched, then the situation becomes quite serious. If one is stronger and the other weaker, it is a bit better; but if both are dominant and both are indispensable, then there is a problem.

On the one hand, such a person may try to achieve success in society, in business, in art, and in science -- "success" in quotation marks. But he finds that for every step forward, he takes two steps back. Why? Because he does not approve of himself, does not approve of standing out, does not approve of expressing his true self, and he is always afraid that expression is bad. In other words, they will encounter obstacles of their own making -- this obstacle is made by himself, not by others.

If such a person begins to succeed, then they will be powerfully reminded -- the more he succeeds, the more strongly he is reminded. Reminded of what? Reminded of his equally dominant need for lack of success. On the other hand, he needs not to succeed, he does not want to succeed. Why does he not want to succeed? Because he does not want to express himself, he does not want to show his true ideas, he feels this is very dangerous.

For again, this person believes that self-expression is necessary and desirable, while at the same time it is extremely dangerous, and therefore must be avoided. These two completely opposite beliefs are fighting inside his body. On one hand he believes self-expression is legitimate, necessary, and can be pursued; on the other hand he believes it is extremely dangerous and must be avoided.

The result is a dilemma of self-contradiction with no way out. This dilemma can manifest in many ways: one way it may manifest financially -- financially very successful, but because of a serious or mistaken business judgment, the financial benefit is lost. The business is going very well, and suddenly because of an accident, a serious mistake, or a business judgment, overnight he is back to square one. The reason is this contradiction of his: on one hand wanting success, on the other hand not wanting success.

Another manifestation may express the same dilemma through the body itself -- using physical difficulties, illness, serious disease, so that although physical mobility may be so desirable, it appears very dangerous. The vitality and mobility of the body -- that is, the ability to act -- is very normal and attainable, but to him it appears very dangerous, and in this way he makes himself unable to move. Jane was exactly this kind of case; her dilemma caused her body to be unable to move.

To most individuals, this kind of reasoning sounds quite strange. Everyone says, what are you talking about? How could there be such beliefs? There are. When we did the belief-mining exercises earlier, many people, as soon as they dug in, could see completely opposing beliefs within themselves.

Those who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis, or have other symptoms that impair mobility -- that is, people who cannot move -- can ask themselves this question: If I got rid of this rheumatoid arthritis, or this symptom that makes me unable to move, if I could be lively and active, if I could do whatever I wanted, if my movement were no longer hindered in any way, what would I do?

By asking themselves this question, they can find that opposite point that blocks their movement, that stuck point, that stuck point of belief. When this person really thinks about this question, what phenomenon occurs? He will suddenly freeze there -- what do I want to do? He will find that there is nothing he wants to do. He will say: It is dangerous outside, I want to go out and travel around the world and see things, but I feel nowhere is safe enough; or my financial situation does not allow it; I still have children at home to take care of, elderly parents to support... Anyway, he will find all kinds of reasons to tell himself that he cannot go anywhere. Through this point, you will know that the root of his illness is not actually in his body, but in his mind.

Just like the earlier example of the alcoholic's wife. All of her beliefs were aimed at making her husband stop drinking, but instead she created this reality: her husband kept drinking, and she kept trying to stop him from drinking, in order to demonstrate her own value. Has she ever asked -- suppose your husband really stopped drinking, then what would you do? If he stopped drinking, he would not go out drinking every night, then what about you? As the wife of an alcoholic, what should you do? If you say, I should go study, I should start my own life, do the things I like -- then you should do that right now, and not worry about whether this alcoholic husband drinks or not. His drinking is his personal problem; you need to live your own life. You only have two choices: either leave, or accept. You are in the middle, neither able to accept his drinking and trying to stop him every day, nor able to accept this matter and not daring to leave -- how uncomfortable is it for you to be stuck in the middle?

If you ask him: If your husband stopped drinking, what would you do? He will suddenly freeze there and say: I have never thought about this question, how could my husband possibly stop drinking? -- He has spoken the truth. As a result, the reality of his life is that his husband keeps drinking and cannot change. Who created it? He created it himself. Why did he create such a dilemma? Because he likes to play a role -- playing the moral high ground, playing a savior.

Seth says that such a person may suddenly be attacked by a feeling of panic; he will suddenly panic, rather than feel relieved, and thus for the first time experience the fear of movement in the underlying problem. Logically, if her husband stopped drinking, she should feel relieved, but no. When she really thinks about this question -- if my husband really stopped drinking, what would I do? -- she instead does not know what to do, and says life has lost its direction.

The same question applies to the issue of children as well. Recently, right around Children's Day, we also organized many summer camp activities, and many wisdom schools are in preparation. Facing the educational issues of many children, many parents have the same problem: every day they worry that their children do not study, that their children are not motivated in their studies, that their children do not communicate with you, that their children play on their phones all day. Have you ever thought about this question: If your child stopped playing on the phone, if your child wanted to be with you, to chat with you, to talk with you, to keep you company, would you be willing? Would you instead pick up your phone and start scrolling at that moment?

Are you willing to accompany your child? Ask more questions like this, and it will make you truly reflect: Why is my child like this today? Is it that the child is unwilling to communicate with you, or that you are unwilling to communicate with the child? You think the child is too young and does not understand anything, and communicating with him has no substantive meaning. Do you really feel in your heart that communicating with your child is more meaningful than communicating with your colleagues, your best friends, or your boss? As long as you truly feel in your heart that communicating with your child is very meaningful and very important, the moment your belief changes, your child will communicate with you, and you will also be ready to communicate with your child. And do you really want to communicate with your child? When facing a matter, just ask ourselves this question in return, and we can get these answers.

Why be afraid of movement? Having mobility and activity, why is that bad? Because so many people have been taught -- too many people have been taught that power and energy are wrong, destructive, sinful, and therefore must be punished. From childhood we are told that a person should be gentle and refined, should be polite, should speak softly and gently, and should not be too loud. When moving, one should also move gracefully and slowly. If your movements show too much power, or if your whole person is very energetic -- whether in facial expression, or energy, or body -- this state of abundance is taught from childhood to be wrong, sinful, and deserving of punishment.

If you fidget in class, the teacher will punish you. Especially Chinese children, in class they must sit neatly, with both hands behind their backs, to make them behave and not play with pencils or things on the desk. Making a child sit there class after class with both hands behind his back -- how cruel. Try sitting like that yourself; sit for 45 minutes with both hands behind your back and do not move. I will not even make you study; I will let you sit here and watch TV dramas -- try sitting for 45 minutes.

Movement is the most basic phenomenon in this world, because it is movement that produced this world; without movement there would be no world. Movement is the most normal phenomenon of all things; a person is not a stone or a piece of wood, so why make him sit perfectly still? This kind of rule is extremely bizarre.

Because children move, they are punished: made to stand as punishment, kicked out of the classroom, parents called in, beaten. When the child grows up, he becomes listless, lacking energy, lying flat every day, with no fighting spirit except for playing games, without any vitality or energy. Then you say: Why is this child so lacking in vitality? You controlled him since childhood -- who is to blame? It is normal for children to move; it is abnormal if they do not move. If a child really stops moving, you probably need to take him to the hospital.

Those playful children who love to play and are boisterous are often told: stop showing off, do not be a show-off, do not display their normal exuberance. Children should not be too rowdy, should not make too much trouble, should be obedient and well-behaved -- but that is their normal exuberance, which should be encouraged, protected, and praised. If a child does not have this exuberance, is he still a child? Now you do not have exuberance anymore; you would like to have it, but can you?

Religion goes even further in emphasizing precepts, moderation, and the importance of asceticism. What moderation? What precepts? What asceticism? Did precepts and moderation exist before this world, or did the universe exist first? Look at this universe -- has it practiced moderation? What precepts does it have? Has it practiced asceticism? When it is time for a volcano to erupt, it erupts; when it is time for orogeny, it does orogeny; when it is time for earthquakes, it quakes; when it is time for tsunamis, it tsunamis. When has it ever restrained itself? This is part of the harmony of nature.

Every day we say we want to be on the same frequency as the universe -- the universe is like this. Does the universe have precepts? Does the universe have moderation? Does the universe have asceticism? The highest state of practice for all of us is to become one with the universe. You want to become one with the universe -- the universe has no precepts, but you do, so can you become one with the universe? Can you be on the same frequency as the universe? Can you not understand such a simple principle?

You say, some master said it, some religion said it, it is written in some religious rule -- can religious rules represent the universe? Can religious rules represent you? Can religious rules live your life for you? Are you living your own life, or are you living as the person those religious rules expect you to be? I have given this example countless times; I do not want to say it again. If precepts and asceticism could lead to attainment, then the Buddha would not have become enlightened at that time -- it was precisely because of asceticism, because of precepts, because of moderation, that he could not reach what he wanted, and could not become enlightened. He ultimately walked out of it precisely because he broke through all these restrictions, and only then did he become enlightened.

All these attitudes, and others as well, these beliefs that are responsible for many psychic, physical, mental, and emotional problems, can all be extremely detrimental to a person. Remember this sentence he said.

Many people say, I have no precepts, but I still have morality, I still have psyche. I must be responsible for my psyche, responsible for my spirit, responsible for my emotions -- my emotions must not fluctuate, my spirit must be healthy, my body must be balanced, I must work out, my psyche must be elevated. And so on.

Remember, all these beliefs that you consider positive have an extremely high possibility of causing great harm to your health, and are also extremely detrimental to your personal growth. This is the point Seth must call out in these people. You want to be responsible for something -- whether it is being responsible for your own growth, responsible for your spiritual growth, responsible for your own enlightenment, responsible for your body, mind, and spirit -- you think this is a positive belief, you think this is a good thing. Wrong. The very act of wanting to be responsible for it, whatever it is, will in itself cause extreme detriment to you.

Many people say, should we not study? Should we not be diligent? Should we not elevate ourselves? Should we not grow? Can these things really cause extreme detriment to me? Yes, I confirm to you again, it is wrong. Although you cannot fully understand what I am saying today, if I confirm it to you again, and if you believe me, you will understand what I mean.

Why is it wrong? Let me tell you simply: your spiritual growth and your enlightenment do not require study and diligence. The more you study and the more diligent you are, the more counterproductive it becomes. It can only be realized automatically in a state of relaxation, love, and connection with the universe. I have never seen any person become enlightened through diligent study and practice. Those so-called serious and hardworking people who have studied and practiced diligently for a long time -- what I ultimately see is that almost none of them can become enlightened.

Among them, Xuanzang is the person I respect the most, but in terms of practice we have to admit that he did not become enlightened¹. He himself said this in his later years in his self-expression: it is a great pity that he did not become enlightened in this life. Whether he was enlightened or not, he knew better than anyone. Why? Who was more diligent than him? If you really understand Xuanzang's life, you will admire him beyond measure. Was he diligent? Diligent. Was his study arduous? Arduous. I have simply never seen anyone more diligent, more arduous, more serious than him. So what?

Take a counterexample -- the Sixth Patriarch Huineng, illiterate, a complete illiterate², who grew to his teens or twenties, heard someone say one sentence, "Because the mind abides nowhere, the mind arises³," and that was it -- he was suddenly struck by it, and insisted on going to study, asking what sutra this was -- the Diamond Sutra -- and who was teaching it? The Fifth Patriarch was teaching it, I must go. Just like that he arrived there, and the Fifth Patriarch did not teach him anything, just sent him to the kitchen to pound rice. He pounded rice for five or eight months⁴. Later the Fifth Patriarch asked everyone to write a poem expressing their state of practice -- everyone knows the story after that. No one taught him during those five or eight months, so how did he become enlightened?

Of course, the Sixth Patriarch had not yet completely become enlightened at that time, but his state was already much higher than that of Shenxiu, the Fifth Patriarch's senior disciple, who had studied for a long time and was very diligent. You say being one level higher counts as much higher? Yes. In practice, as long as your state is one level higher, the difference between you and the other is like heaven and earth. Although this one level is only one level in terms of state, in the world it is the difference between heaven and earth. Although the Sixth Patriarch had not completely become enlightened at that time either, just as when the Fifth Patriarch commented on his poem, he wiped it off the wall with the sole of his shoe and said, "He has not yet attained the Dharma" -- on one hand to protect him, and on the other hand it was the truth.

Later, at midnight, when the Fifth Patriarch called the Sixth Patriarch in to teach him the Dharma, the Fifth Patriarch had just begun, not even halfway through, when the Sixth Patriarch directly slapped the table and rose, pouring out his own understanding in full -- "How unexpected that the self-nature is originally pure⁵" and all that. The Fifth Patriarch saw this and could not continue teaching either.

The wisdom of the Fifth Patriarch, the wisdom of a truly enlightened person, is something ordinary people cannot understand. I say it again: the wisdom of an enlightened person is very difficult for someone who is not enlightened to understand. The simplest way is this: if you have identified him, then trust him, and wait to slowly digest and understand over time; if you do not believe him, then leave him for now and go study on your own, which is also fine.

Let me use the example of the Sixth Patriarch and the Fifth Patriarch. The Fifth Patriarch knew clearly that the Sixth Patriarch still had not become enlightened, but the root of wisdom was there, the aspiration was there, and this matter is inherently complete in itself -- a person's state of enlightenment is inherently complete in itself, and does not require learning anything. But at that time, his timing and maturity had not yet arrived. Even so, the Fifth Patriarch did not say: Listen carefully, I will tell you where you have not become enlightened, explain it clearly point by point, and then tell you where you should improve further. The Fifth Patriarch did not do that.

Why did the Fifth Patriarch not do that? As an enlightened person, he knew that the Sixth Patriarch had already become enlightened -- I am not talking about that specific point in time; he saw the Sixth Patriarch's greatest self, that larger and larger self, that higher self, that state of inherent completeness. What he saw was this. In that very moment, through heart-to-heart communication, through the mutual seal of mind to mind, through the transmission from mind to mind, he sensed that the Sixth Patriarch had become enlightened.

Remember, this enlightenment was not at that point in time. That he later became enlightened proves, or means, that he was already enlightened at this time. You may be able to understand this, or you may not. So the Fifth Patriarch did not correct him or give him any pointing-out instruction; he only encouraged the Sixth Patriarch, personally escorted him out of the temple, pointed out a clear path for him, sent him onto a boat to flee, and even personally handed over his own robe and bowl to him⁶. At this time the Sixth Patriarch was not even a monk, did not even have an official position, and the Fifth Patriarch handed over the symbol of the highest lineage of Chan, the token of patriarchal transmission that had been passed down for so long, to a very young man -- in his early twenties or so; I cannot remember now whether he was in his teens or early twenties.

Then you will understand a principle: why did the Fifth Patriarch not correct the Sixth Patriarch when he was not yet enlightened? Why did the Fifth Patriarch still protect him? The Fifth Patriarch should have properly educated him, given him some teaching -- no, the Fifth Patriarch only sent him away. That night he did transmit the Dharma, but what exactly was transmitted seems not to have been said; how much could be taught in one night. According to the Sixth Patriarch's later recollections in the Platform Sutra⁷, the Fifth Patriarch did not do any so-called pulling up seedlings to help them grow, nor any opening instruction -- none of it.

The principle I want to share with everyone in saying this is -- this sentence of Seth's. This sentence is not so easy to understand; it contradicts many of your viewpoints: the harder you push, the more you want to be responsible, the more you want to be responsible for your own growth, the more dangerous you are. Remember, the more dangerous. Then you say, what should I do then? Stop studying? -- This is a paradox. Study but do not cling, be earnest and diligent but do not cling; the difference in between is very hard to describe in words.

Unfortunately, there are also some special teachings related to sexual orientation, showing effects in one gender rather than in the other. For example, boys are still taught: be cool, be calm, be aggressive, assert yourself -- be independent and unconventional, do not appear too warm, do not be a "warm guy," do not be gentle, do not cooperate, and do not be sociable; do not take the initiative to express your opinions, first stay consistent with everyone; do not be too individualistic.

The gendering is too strong. I have seen many men deliberately putting on that kind of act, which is extremely childish and laughable. Boys are taught that dependence in any respect is unmanly, that a man cannot depend on anyone, and must stand tall and firm. Sometimes when you watch those little boys pretending to be big men, deliberately acting cool, deliberately bluffing, deliberately putting on that appearance, it is especially ridiculous. Generally speaking, during adolescence, when kissed by their mothers, they feel very embarrassed, because they feel they must act like a man.

However, being both independent and dependent, both cooperative and competitive, is quite natural. Independence does not mean one cannot be dependent; independence and dependence can exist at the same time, cooperation and competition exist at the same time, and this is quite natural. But our boys and young men are taught: be independent, not dependent; compete, not cooperate. Such young people grow up with the desire to be independent, yet at the same time, they also experience the natural drive to cooperate with and depend on others -- and in the process, they naturally want to cooperate with others.

Many people end up punishing themselves for any behavior they consider dependent or unmanly -- how can I be unmanly? They are often afraid to express love, feeling that expressing love is an unmanly way; nor do they want to gracefully accept emotional nourishment. In romantic relationships and intimate relationships, they are always stiff and rigid, feeling that is what a man should be. They cannot show that kind of tender affection; no, that will not do. There are too many such men in life -- they think being hard and tough is the norm, and are unwilling to accept emotional nourishment from intimate relationships, so they will certainly be deficient. They neither dare to express love, because they are afraid to express love, nor accept nourishment, so their emotions are deficient; such men generally do not have very good outcomes in intimate relationships.

As a result, some people become severe cases, developing stomach ulcers -- their stomachs, when receiving physical nourishment, also become painful and ulcerated. He does not accept spiritual nourishment, and cannot accept physical nourishment either. Because the stomach is what absorbs nutrients and is nourished, and because he does not want to be spiritually nourished, this leads to certain symptoms in the body as well; stomach ulcers are a typical symptom.

Seth ended at 4:33: "I may or may not return. But again, I do indeed accelerate those coordinates that lead toward peace of mind and body." As soon as Jane came out of trance she said -- "No one disturbed us for anything." Rob told Jane that, like yesterday's session, this session was again very good, and clearly there were many places that fit their situation.

While chatting, Rob heard a nurse pushing a medicine cart outside the door. Jane had already taken her aspirin and this medication. Before he turned her over, she smoked a cigarette. Joe Bumbalo returned to the hospital this afternoon to prepare for his fourth round of chemotherapy. Rob went to see him when he left Jane at 7 o'clock, and he looked and spoke much better. Joe expressed concern about how long he would have to live with cancer. He also described a dream he had often had over the past three months but had not told Margaret -- to Rob, it clearly sounded symbolic of his fear of death, and his resistance to the howling war against death. He agreed with the interpretation Rob gently offered, but Rob himself was not at all sure that everything he said was right.

Then came Wednesday, May 30, 1984, at 4:15 p.m. After yesterday's session Rob wrote: Last night after leaving Jane at 7 o'clock, I went to see Joe Bumbalo. While Rob was in his room, Room 522, Margaret went down to greet Jane; Jane was in Room 330. Joe was scheduled to go home Thursday morning.

Last night, Jane lay on her back, extremely uncomfortable; the bedsore on her left hip, the size of five fingers, was bothering her. She took medication and aspirin, but it still did not help. Today when Rob arrived at Room 330, she was lying on her back and felt much better, though not comfortable. Rob told her: at lunchtime, John Bumbalo called Rob and said his father would not be going home for the time being -- the doctors had found an infection in one of his hips, which no one knew about yesterday.

Seth came through and said: "Now we continue with the dictation." He paused for a long while, then continued:

About power and the use of energy, you have strongly contradictory beliefs: you want to use power and energy, yet you also fear power and energy.

This is the contradictory belief of most people. In life it shows up as being timid and not daring to express yourself truthfully.

And sometimes people who have especially large amounts of mental and physical energy that demand to be used also often experience epileptic symptoms.

Seth is summarizing and concluding: sometimes people who have especially large amounts of mental and physical energy that need to be used, who need to use this energy, often develop epileptic symptoms. In many such cases, the person involved in the epileptic symptoms is extremely intelligent, with obvious but seldom fully used gifts.

There is a movie called Rain Man⁸, you have all seen it, right? The younger brother has a superhuman mathematical ability, but he often has those convulsions and twitches. Epileptic patients are sometimes extremely intelligent, and he is so afraid of his personal power and energy: he has superhuman gifts, but he is also afraid of his own gifts. To the point that their mental systems short-circuit. Think about it: he has such strong superpowers, a mathematical genius, yet he is afraid of his own ability. This leads his mental system to short-circuit, blocking the ability to do any purposeful action, at least temporarily. During an epileptic seizure he cannot do anything. Why? Because he blocks the possibility of doing anything, because he is afraid of his own power. The power is so great, he knows it, but he is also afraid of that power. Then it is better to just not do anything, do nothing at all.

Because they understand that they really are born with powerful gifts and abilities, these people often seek attention for their illness rather than for their abilities. They do not develop their abilities to the fullest; instead they focus on their illness. Why? Because they are afraid of their abilities. They restrict themselves, causing various physical conditions in their own bodies, and then they put their attention on those physical conditions instead of using those abilities.

Because of their cleverness and their nimble coping with distress, they may become professional patients, favored by their doctors. Because they are too intelligent, only in the patient state can they stop themselves from using those abilities. But that ability is always there, and they will use it in all kinds of areas, including in coping with the illness itself. They will become the "professional patients" doctors like, with all symptoms matching the doctors' expectations.

Yet these people are also living in opposite purposes: they decide to both express themselves and not express themselves at the same time. Like so many other people:

They believe self-expression is dangerous, evil, and bound to lead to suffering, whether or not it is self-caused.

They think that as long as they express themselves, it is dangerous and evil; expressing their true thoughts is evil, and it will inevitably lead to suffering, definitely no good outcome. Although the outcome may not be caused by themselves, it may be caused by others or by society, the result will definitely not be good.

This particular group of people is also often possessed by a special kind of rage. Because they cannot show off their power and strength, they cannot show off, because they feel that showing off their power is bad and will bring very serious consequences. Instead, they are forced to make behavior that sometimes seems frightening and humiliating, and they become furious with themselves. They cannot show off their own power; instead it backfires. They do some very frightening and shameful things, mess things up, and then get angry with themselves because they messed up. They express their sense of power through anger. Their sense of power has not been expressed correctly, so they turn it into rage against themselves as an outlet. How strong is this aggression? Originally it should have been a sense of power showing off their gifts and talents to the world, but because they cannot express it, it turns into anger attacking themselves. They put all their power here, all their energy here. How can their bodies stand it?

At 4:28 there was a long pause, and Seth continued:

People with epilepsy also try to be perfectionists, trying so hard to do their best that as a result they have a very uneven, jerking bodily behavior.

They especially want to do things perfectly, but the result is exactly the opposite: not only do they not do things perfectly, they cannot even do what ordinary people can do. They often have convulsions, uneven movements, trembling hands, half-body trembling, facial twitching, eye twitching. They want perfection too much, and their whole person becomes distorted. Over-perfectionists are too tense, causing all their behavior to become abnormal. This explains why people present such states under contradictory beliefs.

In some cases, stuttering is a very mild example of the same kind of activity. Stuttering is a very useful typical example, but very mild. On one hand, epileptic patients feel superior to others, with superhuman gifts and abilities; on the other hand, they behave much more clumsily than ordinary people and can hardly manage normal life. On one hand they look down on others, on the other hand they feel inferior to others. How split that is.

Again, many people also believe that those with special talents and gifts are not liked by people. Having talent and gifts, they will not be liked by most people, and they are easily persecuted. For example, Tesla, the famous scientist. This is a collective belief.

This brings us to a pile of beliefs connected with misfortune and romance. Many people feel that geniuses are bound to have unfortunate experiences, that geniuses are certainly not liked by most people. That is simply not true. The reason is that these geniuses have doubts and conflicts in their self-beliefs. They both believe they are geniuses, superior to others, and also feel they cannot express themselves that way, cannot fully display their power and gifts. This pulling causes physical problems. Once the body has problems, they focus on the physical condition and then tell others: Look, I am not capable, right? I am very weak, right? Although I am very strong in some areas, I am very weak in others, so do not envy me, do not harm me, do not harm me because of my talent or my intelligent brain, because I still have many areas where I am much weaker than you. You should balance it out. I am very intelligent, but I have a bit of epilepsy, and I often foam at the mouth. Do you all understand now?

At 4:34, Jane drank a sip of coffee and smoked a cigarette. At 4:41, he continued. Seth said, these beliefs, that is, this big pile of beliefs linking misfortune and romance. The works of artists, poets, musicians, often insert many tragic plots into these romantic storylines. Basically they are all tragedies: The Butterfly Lovers⁹, Romeo and Juliet¹⁰—there are too many such examples. Clearly it is a very romantic and beautiful thing, yet a tragic ending, tragic coloring, is insisted upon. The Peony Pavilion¹¹ is an exception with a perfect ending. Many romantic themes are themselves very romantic things, but they still insist on adding a tragic coloring.

Why are there so many romantic and sad works of art, film and television works, literary works, and musical works? Both beautiful and sorrowful—why? It is because the artists who create these works have this very belief in themselves: gifted people will not have good outcomes, and romance will not have good outcomes either. Romance is romance, but the result of romance is bound to be unromantic, bound to be sad and miserable. So their works present it that way.

These artists—poets, musicians, actors—their personal life experiences often also cause them to play it out this way: very brilliant and glorious, but the ending is often not good. They like such endings. Their works are similar, and in them:

Gifted people always pay a price in some way for the precious gift of self-expression.

These gifted people are truly gifted, and their ability to express themselves is especially strong. But they are paying a price for this gift of self-expression. Their beliefs tell them that they need to pay a price. What kind of price? Disaster, misfortune, death, accidents. Can you understand? Now you can understand why many artists—for example, Leslie Cheung—killed themselves so young¹². When you have read and understood the Seth material, you will see many things in this world clearly. Some people die in accidents, in car crashes; some from natural disasters; some from illness—all kinds of reasons.

Real artists are not like this. Those truly worth encouraging, truly worth celebrating by humanity, are those who always bravely and joyfully express their own life force and vitality. Do not add those dark, depressive, melancholy, death-related things. I especially want to encourage young people to truly blossom, to live out themselves, to live out an incurable self-confidence and an incurable joy. No sorrow, no misfortune, no miserable endings. Life is simply not like that.

If you want to do artistic creation, do not moan and groan without being ill, do not imitate those so-called art masters as if romance with sadness is what makes good work. It is not true that this is what makes a good work. It is because these people with extraordinary creativity have this kind of belief, while ordinary people without such belief have less creativity and less artistic talent. People with strong artistic talent have this pull of beliefs. Seth casually pointed out another fact and truth. But this is absolutely not the way all artists are.

I have seen many real artists, pure like children, innocent, naive. Their eyes are always transparent, clear, clean. You can always see the childlike curiosity in the depths of their eyes—curiosity about life, about living. You can see from them an endless supply of life force, a heartfelt joy and vitality. Such artists are the real artists. Those who moan without being ill, shed tears at falling flowers, gaze at the starry sky at a forty-five-degree angle, and lament the suffering of the world—those artsy youths are still far from being artists. If we can help most people remove those limiting beliefs from childhood, there will be more and more real artists.

At 4:44, the dictation ended, and Seth talked about Jane: Ruburt's unfortunate night the night before was the result of his own bodily fears. Then he picked up on the terrible facts of Joe Bumbalo's fears, and these stimulated his own fears. He picked up Joe's fear, causing him to sleep badly all night. It involved to some extent Margaret's visit and Rob's visit to Joe's hospital room.

Seth suggested: if he really wants to do more free association about his body, even if he is uncomfortable, it is also a good idea. And those fears should not be treated impatiently. Fear is not terrible; impatience with fear is terrible, and judging fear is terrible. They can and should be counseled, fear can be counseled—even if that means looking again and again at opposite beliefs. When doing free association and observing negative beliefs and opposite beliefs, you are actually discouraging the spread and growth of fear.

Seth said, "In our next session, I will try to give you some further suggestions regarding treatment. And I now wish you a good evening, and a comfortable and pleasant evening." It ended at 4:49.

Rob later thought: Last night when I went to see Joe, Joe talked to me about his fears, but I had not yet had a chance to tell Jane. What Seth said was not quite right; Jane did not pick up the fear. At least I did not tell Jane that Joe felt fear about his life, about how long he could live with cancer. In other words, it was Jane herself who saw Joe's fear, not something I said. Unless after Rob left, Margaret may have talked about it when she visited Jane—but later he asked Margaret, and Margaret said no. Instead Margaret told Jane that Joe felt so much better that the family planned to bring him home on Wednesday night instead of Thursday morning.

Actually, Seth did not blame Rob and Margaret. He was only saying that their visit—this event—stirred up Jane's worries about Joe's cancer, about the fourth chemotherapy treatment, about his future, and this worry extended to her own fears. It is like when you have a good friend who is already in the late stage of cancer and undergoing chemotherapy. When his friend comes to see you, or his wife comes to see you, even though he is recovering well, better and better, the event itself, when your beliefs are not firm, can easily stir up some negative fears in you.

This session is not long, but it contains many core beliefs and also points out that we human beings in many moments live our whole lives in such left-right dilemmas, in double binds. What we call spiritual practice is simply smoothing out our lives, not letting ourselves remain forever in this double bind, not fighting ourselves, not like Zhou Botong's left-right mutual combat. As long as you smooth it out, your human world is heaven; if you do not smooth it out, your heaven is hell. It is that simple.

Seth Dictates: The Roots of Contradictory Beliefs

This portion began on Thursday, May 31, 1984¹³, at 4:15 p.m. On May 28, a nurse in the hydrotherapy department dropped an empty tray onto Jane's left instep, causing a dented injury to the skin and flesh. Jane said it hurt, and that spot still hurts, but it is being treated. This morning, Zhao Zheyang and another nurse's aide bumped Jane's right shin against the metal frame of the stretcher -- the one they use to carry Jane to hydrotherapy. Jane cried out in pain, and Zhao Zheyang wept. Jane immediately began telling herself that everything would be all right, and that indeed seemed to be the case: although her lower leg and foot area hurt at the slightest touch, there was no wound and no bruising. When I arrived at Room 330 in the afternoon, I saw no swelling. Because I had to leave at 1:45 to see the dentist, Jane ate her lunch more quickly than usual. When I returned, I told her I would try to do some free association with her or hold a session, and she said she did not know whether she had the strength for free association, although I really did intend to try, as Seth had said. Last night she was somewhat better, but lying on her back was still uncomfortable, and she also took some medication.

I called Margaret in Room 522 -- that is, Joe Bumbalo's room -- to see how Joe was doing. Joe was undergoing a bone scan at the time, and Margaret said he had become much weaker than when he first came to the hospital, although the prognosis was apparently not a problem.

Then Seth came through.

Ideas Also Have "Relatives"

Seth said:

I wish you a good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Seth. We will continue the dictation.

He said that these ideas have many relatives -- that is, there are some sub-ideas, some similar ideas, called relatives, similar to this idea. Therefore, in fact, we have a whole family of beliefs, a whole set of beliefs, all of which are interrelated in some way. Beliefs always come in sets.

The most important distortion, connected with creativity and expression, is the belief that knowledge itself is dangerous, evil, and bound to lead to disaster. Underlying it is a belief: the more knowledge, the more reactionary; knowledge is dangerous; do not learn so much; the more you understand, the more dangerous it is.

Seth said that at this point, innocence is seen as equivalent to ignorance. In fact, what is hidden behind this belief is a fear of one's own free will and of the choices one makes. Because you feel that the more knowledge you have, the wider the range of choices available to you; when your cognition is greater, when you are well-informed, and when your knowledge is very rich and complete, the choices you face will be very numerous. And people have precisely this fear of free choice.

People are quite willing to do things without having choices. You say this is unreasonable -- how could people be unwilling to make too many choices? Why would there be a fear of choice? I tell you, people really do have a fear of choice.

For example, when you buy something, comparing prices at three different shops is normal; look at more before making a choice. But apart from those female comrades who love shopping, other people basically do not do that much comparing and choosing when buying things.

Another example: when you are choosing a marriage partner, theoretically speaking, the more people you know and the wider your range of choices, the higher the probability that you will eventually find a suitable match. But most people, when it comes to marriage, only come into contact with a few people, and some even have only a first love, and from among these few people they walk into marriage. And society often encourages this kind of thing -- first love leading to marriage, treating it as a virtue that all of society should encourage, advocating love at first sight. Setting aside the spiritual aspect, from the perspective of sociology and psychology, this is a manifestation of humanity's fear of choice. Give him three candidates, and he can still choose fairly easily, or two; if you give him ten to choose from, he will be dazzled; if you give him a hundred, he will not know how to choose.

Seth said:

The greater your knowledge, the more aware you become of probable actions and the vast array of choices that change accordingly.

Not only do your choices increase, but you are also more aware than those without such knowledge or life experience of what consequences a choice may lead to. You will immediately know what consequences making such a choice may bring. And those without such cognition will not know.

Let us return to the question of marriage: a person who has experienced many people and been in many relationships, and who also has relatively high emotional intelligence, will know what consequences choosing such a person will bring; while some inexperienced people, who are relatively naive in romantic experience, relatively "green," will be very simple on this question, because they do not know what the consequences will be. The same is true in job choices, and the same is true in choosing a college major. The less a person understands what these majors actually involve, the more they choose a major based only on society's or other people's perceptions; when they truly understand what each major specifically represents, the knowledge to be learned, and the future career plans, they will instead become confused when choosing a major, not knowing which one to pick.

This is a very interesting thing. Ordinarily we do not notice this at all -- we have deliberately given up our own right to choose.

Contradictory Beliefs About Knowledge

Seth said that there are also people who have a strong demand for knowledge. These other people yearn for knowledge, do not fear it, and believe that knowledge is good and beneficial. But at the same time, on the other hand, they just as fervently believe that knowledge is forbidden and dangerous.

He is still talking about this kind of self-contradictory belief. A person on the one hand believes that knowledge is good and useful, and on the other hand believes that the more knowledge one has, the greater the choices, and the clearer the future outcomes; at this point, because he fears this excessive self-conscious choosing, he even deliberately keeps himself from having so much knowledge.

Seth said:

All of these examples, of course, lead to severe quandaries, and often pull one in two different directions at once.

Remember, it is simultaneously pulling a person in different directions. They are also the cause of many psychic, emotional, and physical problems; many problems are caused by this. Problems of body, mind, and spirit, and emotional problems, are all caused by this mutual pulling of opposing beliefs.

Seth said:

It might also be noted here that when women are involved, this suspicion of knowledge is deepened.

Because tradition has quite wrongly given the impression that when knowledge is possessed by a woman, it will be doubly terrifying.

This should be kept in mind when we discuss beliefs specifically connected with gender.

This is something we are all very familiar with: the ancient Chinese saying, "A woman's virtue lies in her lack of talent¹⁴." It is still the same today -- we often use a very civilized way of cursing people by saying: there are three kinds of people in this world -- men, women, and female PhDs. Why single out female PhDs? Are male PhDs not the same? They consider female PhDs to be something of an exception, so you see, they are actually hinting at this same point: the more knowledge a woman has, the more disadvantageous it is. This view is actually also very dangerous.

Seth said:

It must seem obvious that behind all such beliefs there is a distrust of the natural person and of life itself.

Why do these problems arise? They are caused by a distrust of the natural person and of life itself. Remember, everything he said before is on the surface; the root of the core belief underlying it is a distrust of nature, of the universe, of people, and of life itself. He does not trust that expressing oneself is best, and he does not trust that gaining knowledge is also better. The underlying trust is lacking -- trust in oneself, in the surrounding environment, and in other people is all lacking. Whenever any distrust appears, pulling appears in your life.

This is especially obvious: a person on the one hand likes something, and on the other hand denigrates it; on the one hand wants to get close to an organization, and on the other hand sees the many problems of that organization and rejects it. He is pulled in this way. The underlying cause is actually one core thing -- distrust. It is not distrust of that organization; it is that he does not even trust himself, does not trust nature, does not trust the relationships between people, does not trust life itself. These are the roots that cause these things.

Beliefs Are Tools, Not Objects of Judgment

Seth said:

We must also remember, however, that in a fashion beliefs themselves are tools, and that under certain conditions seemingly quite negative beliefs can clear the way for more beneficial ones.

He asks us to remember another point: do not say that this belief is negative and that belief is good. Beliefs are simply there to be used. In other words, beliefs are there to be swept away with, and beliefs are there to be broken through. There is no such thing as good beliefs and bad beliefs, positive beliefs and negative beliefs. He says that sometimes negative beliefs can better clear the field, clear the road, and sweep away obstacles for you to establish beneficial beliefs. When negative beliefs come out, if you make good use of them, they can clear away obstacles for you to establish positive beliefs.

So do you say they are good or bad? Of course they are good -- if they do not clear the way, your positive beliefs will be very difficult to establish. So in the final analysis it comes back to that one point: do not distinguish between good and bad beliefs; just treat them as tools to be used. At different times, places, occasions, character roles, and specific scenes, people will need to use different beliefs. Beliefs are the tools we use. Just remember: beliefs are not you; you are merely using beliefs as tools. Whatever belief you need to use, you use that belief.

Seth is afraid you will go astray, so he immediately pulls you back:

So having discussed so many negative beliefs, do not call any belief itself bad or evil.

You see, at any moment he pulls you back to a centered perspective, afraid that you will suddenly go to the other extreme. Seth said:

Each belief serves in its own way -- no more bad or evil in itself than, say, a virus.

Each belief functions in its own way; it is not that one belief is better or worse than another. Just as you cannot say whether a virus in your body is better or worse -- it may be good or it may be bad. Therefore, setting aside specific scenes, specific people, and specific needs, talking about whether a belief is good or bad is meaningless.

If you view them in that fashion, you will avoid being overwhelmed by the endless procession of negative thoughts and beliefs that seem to lead only to destruction. Instead, for example, compare negative beliefs to storms that sweep across the country; they have their purposes, and by and large those purposes are certainly beneficial to the support of life itself.

His meaning is to bring you back to the middle way once again. If you look at things in terms of good beliefs and bad beliefs, that is very extreme. You should still return to a centered attitude and not judge them -- saying this belief is good or that belief is bad. Just like storms in nature, can you say they are good or bad? A hurricane sweeping across the country, do you say it is good or bad? This can only be said from a larger perspective: it also benefits the entire earth's environment and climate. From the individual perspective, all these beliefs actually benefit you -- every belief, whether positive or negative, active or passive, so-called good or bad, is beneficial to you.

Two Things to Remind Yourself Of

Seth said:

While we are still in the midst of this discussion, however, remind yourself that you can in any case be changed for the better.

Remind yourself constantly that the most powerful solution to a problem is at least as probable as the most unfortunate one.

He especially wants to tell you: remember, in any situation, you can become better. No matter how things were before, no matter how much influence old beliefs have had on you, anyone can become better. The reason you have become the condition you do not like today -- whether in body, family, wealth, or health -- no matter what reasons caused those beliefs that made you so unwell today, they could easily make you this unwell; and if you want to change, they can just as easily make you well.

The beliefs that caused your serious illness, when you change them, just as they had the power to make you ill, and did so so quickly, they can also make you well very rapidly. The beliefs that made your situation worse and the beliefs that make your situation better have the same effect. In other words, the fact that you could become this bad was also the result of your inadvertence -- you did not even try very hard, and you became the condition you are in today. If this condition is not good, then if you want to become better, it will happen just as inadvertently -- no effort needed, no strain needed, no great suffering needed. As long as your beliefs turn around, everything will fall into place.

Seth said:

Remind yourself that regardless of all your worries, the spirit of life itself is continually forming your physical body within your experience.

That is, no matter how much you worry about changes in your body, the spirit of your life itself is continually forming your physical body within your experience. Your physical body is formed by your spirit -- when your spirit improves, your physical body improves; when your beliefs are set right, your body is set right. It is that simple.

In this session, Seth once again accelerated those messages encouraging happiness and peace of body and mind. He told Ruburt to pay special attention to the last few sentences -- that is, the last few sentences just mentioned: your physical body is formed by your spirit. At 4:38, once again we were not interrupted, and Jane's delivery was very good. When I read this session to her before turning her over, she smoked a cigarette.

Most People Lead Unsatisfactory Lives

Next is June 1, 1984—this day is also Children's Day, though there is no such holiday in the United States¹⁵—Friday at 4:12 p.m. Seth said:

Now I wish you a good afternoon once again.

Once again, good afternoon. We will continue with the dictation.

He paused for quite a while, and then said:

Most people do indeed lead unsatisfactory lives, and many of them are seeking goals that are almost impossible to achieve because of the large masses of contradictory beliefs all competing for their attention.

This statement gives an overview. He described what the root is of most people's unsatisfactory lives: they spend a great deal of time dealing with these big, tangled clumps of contradictory beliefs—fighting inside themselves. They do this and do that, and when they do that their heart is not in it; if they do not do this, then they worry about such and such. They just keep going around and around in this, not doing anything really useful. Time and energy are wasted on self-consumption, internal friction, and tug-of-war.

This is why a great part of life is unsatisfying. Speaking of this, if any of you want to solve their problems or do healing for them, it is very simple—just help them get their beliefs in order. Actually, this sentence gives you the root for doing future family healing or emotional healing: quite simply, set their beliefs straight and do not let them keep draining themselves internally and fighting.

Seth said:

This not only leads to private dilemmas—including those involving intimate relationships, those involving illness, and relationships that seem hopeless—but also leads to the tangles of nationwide misunderstanding.

Their effect is the same. This kind of tug-of-war in beliefs can lead to illness, dilemmas in life, dilemmas in relationships, and relationships that seem hopeless, and so on. And if most of humanity is caught in this kind of dilemma, in this state of being wrong no matter what they choose, it will lead to nationwide misunderstanding, nationwide tangles of misunderstanding—everyone is caught in these tangles, misunderstanding one another—as well as worldwide disorder. Because no one has put energy into real matters; they have put it into this tug-of-war.

But Seth immediately went on to say:

There is indeed a way to break through this conflict, and the broader paths that express peace and satisfaction are available to everyone.

No matter how bad the whole picture may look.

He said the root of these upheavals and disorder in the world is exactly this kind of self-tugging, inner draining, being caught in a dilemma, and self-contradiction—one's own beliefs fighting. It not only causes bodily troubles in individuals, but also causes worldwide disorder in social issues on a global scale. But there is indeed a way to break through this conflict; there is a way. Those broader roads that express peace and satisfaction are available to every person—the golden road, the broad highway, available to everyone. What kind of road? A road on which you can freely express yourself, and live peacefully, beautifully, and contentedly—such a road of happiness is available to everyone.

No matter how bad the whole picture looks, do not focus on the whole, and do not focus on how chaotic this society or this country is. As far as you as an individual are concerned, you can absolutely live the kind of life like heaven on earth that you want. As long as you go with the flow, just take good care of yourself. Do not say that this world is so chaotic, that most people are in tug-of-war, and that their tugging will affect the whole society—why care about them? Do not care about them; just take care of yourself.

Do We Have to Wait Until All Diseases Are Conquered?

Seth said:

Therefore, it is possible to improve your health and deepen the quality of all your experience.

Do not say that because everyone is caught in this kind of either-or conflict of belief, the whole country or the whole world will not be good, and that because you are in such a large environment you will not be good either. He tells you not to worry about that; it will not happen. Solve your own problem, and this also enhances all your health and the texture of your experience.

Seth said:

In terms of the life you understand, imagining that all diseases will eventually be conquered, all relationships will inevitably be satisfying, or envisioning a future in which all people in the world are treated with equality and respect is obviously too optimistic.

But you must have this kind of beautiful expectation and foresight for the future. In the larger framework mentioned earlier in this book—that is, beyond the three-dimensional world, in the larger framework of all of you—first, illness itself is part of the whole activity of life.

His meaning is that if you insist on waiting until all illnesses are solved before you can be happy, you have it wrong. It is not that they cannot be solved; with the development of science and technology diseases can be solved, but after diseases are solved there will still be other health problems. These health problems are part of your life. Life is a kind of experience, and illness is also another kind of experience; it is only part of experience, so do not judge it or fight against it.

The so-called state of life—the physical life that you consider to be life—is just as necessary as normal health.

So what we are talking about is not nirvana on earth—reaching that state of ultimate nirvana with no pain and no worries. We are not asking you to reach that, nor saying the world has no suffering. It is how you regard these sufferings—if you regard illness and disease as part of life, then you will not look at them, resist them, and fight against them as before, finding them so unacceptable.

But Seth said:

But we are indeed saying that every reader, from the very beginning, can accelerate his or her private perception and extend and expand ordinary consciousness to such a degree that, compared with present experience, life can almost be considered heaven on earth.

What he says is very simple: the things in this world will still happen when they are meant to happen; flash floods will still occur, earthquakes will still occur, storms will still occur—none of this will change. What changes is whether your consciousness has truly been raised and expanded. When your consciousness is expanded and raised, what you experience is heaven on earth.

Why do those awakened people just laugh and be happy all day, with nothing but joy every day? Because they live in heaven on earth. You may say your job is not ideal, your child did not get into the key elementary school, and so on—none of this can affect them anymore. This merging with the essence of joy, this merging with self, is the state he is talking about. Compared with us ordinary people's lives, they seem to live in heaven—no fear, no annoyance, no worry, always in a state of joy, and able every day to have their wishes fulfilled. For ordinary people, isn't such a life heaven on earth? But why don't most people live in heaven? Because the tugging and inner draining in their beliefs prevent them from putting energy into this aspect; they spend it all on inner draining.

The Deepest Reeducation

At 4:28, after a long pause, Seth said:

This involves a most profound reeducation.

Remember this sentence. What kind of education? He said:

The contradictory beliefs mentioned so far are the result of what I have previously called the official line of consciousness. Obviously, people experienced the problem of illness long before those contradictory beliefs began, but again, that is because of the role that the state of illness plays in the overall health of individuals and of the whole world.

He says this in a back-and-forth way, so you have to understand it. First, becoming ill—this matter of illness—is actually a process of re-education for people. Through illness you will rethink some profound questions; if you do not get this illness, you may not think about them. This is the first point he wants to make.

Second, this is the result of the earlier, official line of your consciousness—how scientists view consciousness will lead to such a result. Why is our consciousness always tugging like this? Why? Because our logical thinking capacity can think only under the opposition of duality. With a dualistic viewpoint, its conclusions will necessarily be in this kind of left-right dilemma. Unless the person chooses only a single option every time, that is also possible; but most people must choose between the two, and this very choosing will produce such contradiction—choose this, and the other is not chosen, but that other option still continues to act.

He goes on to say that obviously people had illnesses long before these contradictory beliefs began. He means that it is not that illness arose only after these beliefs appeared. But at the same time, your illness is indeed caused by the tugging of your beliefs. Which of these two statements is right? Both are right—although it seems as though only one can be right.

Let me say it again: indeed, illness existed before humanity had these so-called conflicting beliefs; but your illness is indeed caused by your conflicting beliefs. Why? Because illness and unhealth are only one form of your whole life state; they certainly exist—where there is life, there is illness; where there is health, there is unhealth. There is no doubt about this.

Starting Over

Seth said:

It is indeed quite possible to start over from the beginning, because you will be dealing with material that is intimately familiar to you—your own thoughts, emotions, and beliefs.

We have talked for a long time; now how exactly do we improve our lives and our health? What should be done?

The simplest thing is to start over. What does starting over mean? It does not mean starting your life over; it means your beliefs can start over—establish a completely new worldview, values, and outlook on life; readjust the three views and establish a new belief system. Do it just like that, and it can be done right away. Because you will be dealing with material intimately familiar to yourself—you will deal with your thoughts, emotions, and beliefs, and these are all your own things.

Seth said:

Of course you must begin from where you are now, but if you make the effort to carry out the new assumptions that we will suggest here, there is no one who cannot improve his or her position to a considerable degree.

You can only start from where you are now, down to earth. If you change in accordance with the method he has described, then there is no one who cannot improve his or her position to quite a good degree. It means that as long as you do it, it will certainly be effective, and the effect will be very good.

He said:

To some extent, these concepts are already present, although they do not yet hold a dominant position in world experience.

Although these views are not entirely consistent with mainstream society, and are even opposite to it, they have long existed. There are many people on the same frequency as you, but there are also mainstream people who do not approve of your views; just understand this.

During the break at 4:35, Linda brought Jane her aspirin and medicine. Jane said her throat was still uncomfortable. At the same time, there was a lot of siren noise outside—three fire engines and other vehicles, all sounding their sirens, in the corner outside our third-floor window—apparently heading toward the entrance of the emergency room, the temporary entrance. A little later, an urgent call for a doctor came over the public address system. At 4:44 it continued.

Beliefs Are Better Than Any Medicine

Seth said:

This alternative way of thinking is biologically appropriate, because it should now be obvious that certain beliefs and concepts help promote health, while others hinder it.

He says that it is correct for you to think in this way about the influence of beliefs on the body. It should now be obvious: your beliefs directly affect your body.

These concepts are the transfer of the emotional attitudes of nature and all parts of life itself, and they are better than any medicine.

What are these concepts? They are the transfer of the emotional attitudes of nature and life, of all parts of these two themselves. Between person and person, between life and life, between human beings and nature, between species and species, between individual and individual—a transfer of these emotional relationships.

Seth said:

They are better than any medicine.

What kind of concepts? This kind of expression that promotes the value fulfillment of all kinds of life, regardless of its form—toward everything in the world, no matter what species it is—this expression that can promote value fulfillment has nothing to do with shape; it has nothing to do with whether it is a snake or an owl.

The last point he wants to make here is stated on three levels: First, you are part of the natural world; just as nature has all kinds of climate changes, for you, being ill is also part of your health. The second concept is that you can indeed change your bodily condition by changing your beliefs, and your body can always be changed and become better. The third is that, according to the idea of value fulfillment, all life will promote the fulfillment expression of other life.

These sentences are all extremely profound; they are by no means superficial. He says that beliefs can improve health—some beliefs will hinder your health, and beliefs can be changed. But he also tells you how these beliefs come about. Whether they promote health or hinder health, these beliefs are all an expression and a transfer of feelings among all parts of life itself, among all its parts. This emotional relationship between the world or nature and all things is expressed through these beliefs—these beliefs are an abstract and externalized expression of these emotional attitudes.

What kind of relationship do I have with the natural world? When I cherish all plants and trees, when I can feel empathy with them and have this sense of connection, it means that the feeling between you and nature is one of love. If you hate nature and regard it as a threat and harm to people—whether earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or whatever, and you feel they are all bad—then the feeling between you and nature is expressed as such beliefs. In other words, how you express your feelings toward nature, toward the people around you, and toward events is very important. If you express them well, your beliefs will accordingly present well. So when there is a problem with your beliefs, you should consider where the problem lies in the emotional expression between you and your surrounding environment—this is the root, and the core point is right here.

Part One of This Book Ends Here

At 4:47, Seth gave a note:

This is the first part of this book. Its title could be called "Dilemma."

This book is divided into two parts. The first part, "Dilemma," has nine chapters total, and this is the last chapter. When we begin the next chapter, it will be the second part of the book, called "Starting Over."

Seth said:

I want to remind you both that what I have said is really possible. I emphasize again, it is far more possible than impossible; that is how it is.

I remind you again that everything I have said above is very possible, far more possible than the impossibility you think. You say all this is impossible? Then I tell you, this possibility of mine is far greater than the impossibility you think.

Ruburt can begin from his present position, because everyone must begin from the situation at hand.

It is the same for everyone. The point of power is in the present. He emphasizes the point of power again. Remember, any point is the point where you can turn the tables, the point where you can turn around and rise. Just begin from the situation at hand.

Through the present, I wish you a pleasant afternoon.

The content has now covered the whole of Chapter Nine, which is also the first half of the entire book. Starting from the next chapter, we will begin the new chapter called "Starting Over."

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. According to Mike's original words, it was "pounding rice for five months or eight months"; upon verification, it should be "According to the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, Huineng pounded rice with a pestle at the Fifth Patriarch Hongren's place for 'more than eight months,' that is, over eight months, not five months." (Source: Zongbao, Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (Taishō T2008), https://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw/zh/T2008) ↩

5. Source: Huineng, Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, Chapter on Origins (https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hans/%E5%85%AD%E7%A5%96%E5%A3%87%E7%B6%93/%E8%A1%8C%E7%94%B1%E5%93%81) ↩

6. Source: Wikipedia, "Daman Hongren" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daman_Hongren) ↩

7. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Platform Sutra" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Platform-Sutra) ↩

8. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Rain Man | Cast, Movie, Plot, Awards, & Autism" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rain-Man) ↩

9. Source: China Intangible Cultural Heritage Network - China Intangible Cultural Heritage Digital Museum, "The Legend of Liang Zhu" (https://www.ihchina.cn/project_details/12189) ↩

10. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Romeo and Juliet | Summary, Characters, & Facts" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Romeo-and-Juliet) ↩

11. Source: Wikipedia, "The Peony Pavilion" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peony_Pavilion) ↩

12. Source: South China Morning Post, "April 1, 2003: Pop star Leslie Cheung dies in fall from Hong Kong hotel" (https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/3178059/april-1-2003-pop-star-leslie-cheung-dies-fall-hong-kong) ↩

13. Source: Time and Date AS, "Year 1984 Calendar – United States" (https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1984&country=1) ↩

14. Source: Wikipedia, "A woman's lack of talent is a virtue" (https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E5%A5%B3%E5%AD%90%E6%97%A0%E6%89%8D%E4%BE%BF%E6%98%AF%E5%BE%B7) ↩

15. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Children's Day" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Childrens-Day-holiday) ↩