Maybe not so much distortion as simplification. Like you say it was very early in the sessions so a lot of concepts hadnât been explained yet, including probabilities, the nature of âtimeâ, and even âyou create your own realityâ. Seth only ever doled out what Jane & Rob were capable of grasping at the time, as he said himself.
I think the early Seth material has to be seen in this context, if something seems to contradict what comes later itâs probably because a better explanation wasnât possible at that point without some other major concepts being explained first. That said though, some of the very early stuff is fascinating for this reason - itâs very direct in some areas in a way that the later books arenât, and it makes you see the same ideas from a different perspective. Even with these issues its still probably the most internally consistent system of knowledge Iâve seen.
Itâs a difficult one to answer, but itâs obvious that there are people born all of the time into what are objectively far from ideal circumstances. But Frank Wattâs life after being born wasnât dictated beforehand, he chose what happened through his beliefs, etc. He wasnât destined for a life of suffering that couldnât be altered. Mostly likely there are probable Frank Wattses that had quite pleasant, happy lives.
I guess you could question deeper and ask it is morally right for an entity to create a personality that it âknowsâ is likely - but not definitely - going to have a difficult life. But how many probable selves of ours are there that weâve spun off without even being aware of it, whose situation is worse or even a lot worse than ours? How much responsibility do we have for that? It seems like ordinary human morality is not so easy to apply when it runs up against the infinitely creative nature of âGodâ / All That Is. Every personality or probable self etc that is created has its own choices and is free to develop in its own way, so ultimately weâre all headed the same way, just starting at different places. Thatâs one way you could look at it. But this is tough stuff to think about, no mistake!
REALITY CREATION TAKEN TO A NEW LEVELâŚfrom ron by way of Oceanside RickâŚ
âIn the past, for example, the ego accepted only knowledge that came through the
senses through the physical surroundings. Now it is open to inner data to a
large degreeâŚâ
âThe personality is more integrated, yet through its acceptance of inner data,
the ego, to use the term lightly, has expanded. It has not shrunk. It is now
composed of more various elements from the whole personalityâŚâ
âŚThis is a cornerstone for consciousness and for personality development. It
is only a first step, however. Without it, no further development of
consciousness can occur.
This particular step is not attained by all within your system. You are at this
point now. This state has been called cosmic consciousness, but it is hardly
that.
The next step is taken when identity is able to include within itself the
intimate knowledge of all incarnations. Yet in this state the independence of
the various reincarnated selves is not diminished.
Each of these steps of consciousness involves identity with the inner
recognition of its whole identity with All That Is.
As each separate identity then seeks to know and experience its other portions
then All That Is learns who and what it is.
Action never ceases its own exploration of itself.
Seth, Session 309
Byron, In a sense, you are I are also fragmentsâŚron
Frank Watts was not a fragment personality. He was/is an aspect of Seth, incarnationally. Seth said Frank was a âmake-upâ personality, tying up all loose ends for Sethâs incarnations, and a rather âcolourlessâ one, as Seth remarked.
Seth, Why did you send a portion of your overall self to earth to live a rather colorless life as you describe, after you were basically finished with physicalness?
Seth-esque: In a word, humility. I felt I needed a measure of humility to permanently close out my physical earthly experience, and that life worked out and served the purpose well. Iâve had more earthly lives than I care to reveal and I have no desire for any more as my present environment serves me well. Enjoy your brilliant focus.
I often felt Seth sanitized some things he said for Janes and the readerâs comfort. In a simulation which works with opposites and needs its rules, it easy to believe that even the most outrageous acts could not have an entity neutrality to them. Morality doesnât really stack up for me as other than as a human concept, but I do feel there is energy and consequences.
I follow exactly even if I donât understand some of this, by recalling Sethâs info at times when I really donât have any personal experiences concerning the point in question or donât know how to relate to it. these future selves, who have already been there before âIâ have, finds me open but totally perplexed. I love sharing and reading this.
I am sorry that I donât recognize the source, but seth did say humility was a main focus during frankâs life. ron just doesnât keep up with his posts as often as most of us.
Maybe it has to do with an âinvisible beliefâ which is one that you are not aware of consciously. I think he uses the belief of unworthiness as an example. He also says you can work through these safely. I would take a look at the things that throw you off and more importantly the emotions behind them. Hopefully that would lead you to the hidden or invisible belief you may be harboring. Good luck creating
Cancel that. I should practice that the world is abundant, verdant, supplying all who want it with sustenance; that nations are peaceful, and working to better their citizens and the world. Creativity is encouraged and cooperation is an increasingly large part of our lives. And stuff like that.