Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Posted in
Religion
,|
Seth
|
To give my readers a taste of the Seth material, I am excerpting below the portion of the Material that I find the most interesting. As I have said in so many other articles, Seth was a soul or spirit who was channelled by the psychic Jane Roberts from 1963 until her death in 1984. The readings (called the "Seth material" or "Seth Material") form the basis of my religious views, and I think there's a chance that the Material will become the next great religion. Seth didn't want his remarks to become a religion (since religions always degenerate into ritual and dogma), but the fact is that the Material was all about God (whom Seth referred to as "All That Is") and our place in the universe.
This portion of the Material was excerpted by Jane Roberts in her first book about Seth, The Seth Material. When I later read the early sessions from which this passage was pulled, I found that it was actually spread over several sessions, and that it was interspersed with other topics. Roberts edited out those other topics, and I have kept her edits just as they are.
In this portion of the Material, Seth is talking about the evolution of personality from "action". Now, I need to explain what "action" is. In the later Seth books, Seth explained that everything in the universe is formed from mental energy that flows from God. In the early sessions, before Seth started talking about God, he simply called that energy "action". He called it "action" because it is always in motion, always in a state of becoming, always doing something or creating something. It is never quiescent. Since it is always in a state of activity, "action" is as good a word for it as any. Seth also referred to it as "inner vitality".
It should be noted that the mental energy (or "action") that forms the universe is alive and has consciousness, and that it is also self-replicating (it reproduces endlessly as needed). It seems that various stages of personality are achieved as this "action" forms ever more complex structures. Thus, consciousness and identity come first, consciousness of self comes second, and the ego is the last to emerge. Seth also reveals that there are imbalances in the universe, without which there would be no existence. Specifically, there are three "dilemmas" that make existence possible.
Before I go to the excerpt, let me say that this portion of the Material is extremely complex and esoteric. Other aspects of the Material are more accessible. This portion is for people who want to understand existence at its most fundamental level.
This portion of the Material was excerpted by Jane Roberts in her first book about Seth, The Seth Material. When I later read the early sessions from which this passage was pulled, I found that it was actually spread over several sessions, and that it was interspersed with other topics. Roberts edited out those other topics, and I have kept her edits just as they are.
In this portion of the Material, Seth is talking about the evolution of personality from "action". Now, I need to explain what "action" is. In the later Seth books, Seth explained that everything in the universe is formed from mental energy that flows from God. In the early sessions, before Seth started talking about God, he simply called that energy "action". He called it "action" because it is always in motion, always in a state of becoming, always doing something or creating something. It is never quiescent. Since it is always in a state of activity, "action" is as good a word for it as any. Seth also referred to it as "inner vitality".
It should be noted that the mental energy (or "action") that forms the universe is alive and has consciousness, and that it is also self-replicating (it reproduces endlessly as needed). It seems that various stages of personality are achieved as this "action" forms ever more complex structures. Thus, consciousness and identity come first, consciousness of self comes second, and the ego is the last to emerge. Seth also reveals that there are imbalances in the universe, without which there would be no existence. Specifically, there are three "dilemmas" that make existence possible.
Before I go to the excerpt, let me say that this portion of the Material is extremely complex and esoteric. Other aspects of the Material are more accessible. This portion is for people who want to understand existence at its most fundamental level.
* * *
[Taken verbatim from The Seth Material. Italics, ellipses and brackets in the original.]
Identity may be termed action which is conscious of itself. For the purposes of our discussion, the terms 'action' and 'identity' must be separated, but basically no such separation exists. An identity is also a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action upon itself – and through this interweaving of action with itself, through this re-action, an identity is formed.
The energy of action, the workings of action within and upon itself, forms identity. Yet though identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated. Identity, then, is action's effect upon itself. Without identity, action would be meaningless, for there would be nothing upon which action could act. Action must, by its very nature, of itself and its own workings, create identities. This applies from the most simple to the most complex.
Once more, action is not a force from without that acts upon matter. Action is, instead, the inside vitality of the inner universe – it is the dilemma between inner vitality's desire and impetus to completely materialize itself, and its inability to completely do so.
This first dilemma results in action, and from action's own workings upon itself we have seen that identity was formed, and that these two are inseparable. Action is, therefore, a part of all structure. Action, having of itself and because of its nature formed identity, now also because of its nature would seem to destroy identity, since action must involve change, and any change seems to threaten identity.
It is a mistaken notion, however, that identity is dependent upon stability. Identity, because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. This is our second dilemma.
It is the dilemma, between identity's constant attempts to maintain stability and action's inherent drive for change, that results in the imbalance, the exquisite creative by-product that is consciousness of self. For consciousness and existence do not result from delicate balances so much as they are made possible by lack of balances, so richly creative that there would be no reality were balance ever maintained.
We have a series of creative strains. Identity must seek stability while action must seek change; yet identity could not exist without change, for it is the result of action and a part of it. Identities are never constant as you yourselves are not the same consciously or unconsciously from one moment to the next. Every action is a termination, as we discussed earlier. And yet without the termination, identity would cease to exist, for consciousness without action would cease to be conscious.
Consciousness, therefore, is not a 'thing' in itself. It is a dimension of action, an almost miraculous state, made possible by what I choose to call a series of creative dilemmas.
It should be fairly easy to see how the second dilemma evolved from the first. I have said that the second one resulted in – and constantly results in – consciousness of self. This is not ego consciousness. Consciousness of self is still consciousness directly connected with action. Ego consciousness is a state resulting from the third creative dilemma, which happens when consciousness of self attempts to separate itself from action. Since this is obviously impossible, since no consciousness or identity can exist without action, we have the third dilemma.
Again: consciousness of self involves a consciousness of self within – and as a part of – action. Ego consciousness, on the other hand, involves a state in which consciousness of self attempts to divorce self from action – an attempt on the part of consciousness to perceive action as an object ... and to perceive action as initiated by the ego as a result, rather than as a cause, of ego's own existence.
These three dilemmas represent three areas of reality within which inner vitality can experience itself. And here also we have the reason why inner vitality can never achieve complete materialization. The very action involved in vitality's attempt to materialize itself adds to the inner dimension of vitality itself.
Action [i.e., inner vitality] can never complete itself. Materializing in any form whatsoever, it at once multiplies the possibilities of further materialization. At the same time, because inner vitality is self-generating, only a minute fraction of it is needed to seed a universe.
In line with the statement made earlier that action necessarily changes that which it acts upon [which is basically itself], then it follows that the action involved in our sessions changes the nature of the sessions. I have spoken often of consciousness as the direction in which a self focuses. Action implies infinite possibilities of focus.
It would seem from what Seth said that we need an ego in order to survive in the physical world. "Action" by itself, which I think can fairly be referred to as the id, is not sufficient to deal with the world. The ego, in assuming causal responsibility for the results of "action", has by its very nature a directorial quality which the id does not; and it is that quality which is so needed in the physical world. But the ego can become bloated if it is fed too much. There doesn't seem to be anything to stop the ego from expanding, beyond the negative feedback that the world may give it. But if a person is rich enough to insulate himself from truthful people, the world may not give the ego any negative feedback at all.
The energy of action, the workings of action within and upon itself, forms identity. Yet though identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated. Identity, then, is action's effect upon itself. Without identity, action would be meaningless, for there would be nothing upon which action could act. Action must, by its very nature, of itself and its own workings, create identities. This applies from the most simple to the most complex.
Once more, action is not a force from without that acts upon matter. Action is, instead, the inside vitality of the inner universe – it is the dilemma between inner vitality's desire and impetus to completely materialize itself, and its inability to completely do so.
This first dilemma results in action, and from action's own workings upon itself we have seen that identity was formed, and that these two are inseparable. Action is, therefore, a part of all structure. Action, having of itself and because of its nature formed identity, now also because of its nature would seem to destroy identity, since action must involve change, and any change seems to threaten identity.
It is a mistaken notion, however, that identity is dependent upon stability. Identity, because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. This is our second dilemma.
It is the dilemma, between identity's constant attempts to maintain stability and action's inherent drive for change, that results in the imbalance, the exquisite creative by-product that is consciousness of self. For consciousness and existence do not result from delicate balances so much as they are made possible by lack of balances, so richly creative that there would be no reality were balance ever maintained.
We have a series of creative strains. Identity must seek stability while action must seek change; yet identity could not exist without change, for it is the result of action and a part of it. Identities are never constant as you yourselves are not the same consciously or unconsciously from one moment to the next. Every action is a termination, as we discussed earlier. And yet without the termination, identity would cease to exist, for consciousness without action would cease to be conscious.
Consciousness, therefore, is not a 'thing' in itself. It is a dimension of action, an almost miraculous state, made possible by what I choose to call a series of creative dilemmas.
It should be fairly easy to see how the second dilemma evolved from the first. I have said that the second one resulted in – and constantly results in – consciousness of self. This is not ego consciousness. Consciousness of self is still consciousness directly connected with action. Ego consciousness is a state resulting from the third creative dilemma, which happens when consciousness of self attempts to separate itself from action. Since this is obviously impossible, since no consciousness or identity can exist without action, we have the third dilemma.
Again: consciousness of self involves a consciousness of self within – and as a part of – action. Ego consciousness, on the other hand, involves a state in which consciousness of self attempts to divorce self from action – an attempt on the part of consciousness to perceive action as an object ... and to perceive action as initiated by the ego as a result, rather than as a cause, of ego's own existence.
These three dilemmas represent three areas of reality within which inner vitality can experience itself. And here also we have the reason why inner vitality can never achieve complete materialization. The very action involved in vitality's attempt to materialize itself adds to the inner dimension of vitality itself.
Action [i.e., inner vitality] can never complete itself. Materializing in any form whatsoever, it at once multiplies the possibilities of further materialization. At the same time, because inner vitality is self-generating, only a minute fraction of it is needed to seed a universe.
In line with the statement made earlier that action necessarily changes that which it acts upon [which is basically itself], then it follows that the action involved in our sessions changes the nature of the sessions. I have spoken often of consciousness as the direction in which a self focuses. Action implies infinite possibilities of focus.
* * *
I have one observation to make about Seth's comments. Seth didn't say this explicitly, but it is clear that the ego is based on a falsehood (the falsehood being that the ego is the cause of action and not the result of it). When you think about it, people's egos do more to screw up the world than anything else. Calling someone "egotistical" is an insult. Not only that, but the people that we like the best are generally the ones who are not very egotistical. Yet, from Seth's description it would seem that the ego is a normal facet of personality, one which evolves naturally. I'm not sure what the implications of that are, but I find it highly interesting.
* * *
[Added July, 2015:] The issue of ego is becoming front and center in my life as I struggle with my own ego. In fact, I am gradually coming to believe that ego is the source of most of mankind's worst problems. That becomes clear when you realize that ego drives every dictator and every corporate wunderkind who is trying to dominate the consumer or financial market. Ego drives all competition. In the world of sports, the athletes who are the most successful are often the ones with the most ego. After a competition, the winner's ego is boosted while the loser must prop up his damaged ego.It would seem from what Seth said that we need an ego in order to survive in the physical world. "Action" by itself, which I think can fairly be referred to as the id, is not sufficient to deal with the world. The ego, in assuming causal responsibility for the results of "action", has by its very nature a directorial quality which the id does not; and it is that quality which is so needed in the physical world. But the ego can become bloated if it is fed too much. There doesn't seem to be anything to stop the ego from expanding, beyond the negative feedback that the world may give it. But if a person is rich enough to insulate himself from truthful people, the world may not give the ego any negative feedback at all.
0 comments:
Post a Comment