Change a past event


I’ve been reading about how to change the past and Seth has given a technique where you can shift to a probable past in your mind.
I would like to know does this actually physically change the past event or just our interpretation of the event?

For example,
I’d like to shift to a probable past event where I never met a certain person. If I do the exercise correctly and believe that, would the person involved see the same way too?

When you change the past you don’t know that you experienced another life choice. In your case, you don’t know about that person’s existence, neither do they of yours.

So, I believe it’s possible, but you don’t know what risks you take, where the new path will lead you and others from your current life. I wouldn’t do that.

Besides this kind of dramatic change, there is also the possibility of change=ing the past to meet a need you experience in the present. I believe it happened to me at least once; probably more, but I wasn’t aware.

This is what happened:

One evening I was involved in an unexpected event with another person, that created a life changing conflictual situation, I had no solution for.

Next morning, in trance, I asked my subconscious to find an acceptable solution to the problem.

Then, after my workout and shower I opened a book I had started three days earlier, to continue reading it. In the first paragraph I read, I was presented a perfect solution to my problem, which I applied successfully.

The book was by an author I just had heard of only four days earlier, on a forum I had joined only a few days earlier, and, googling that author’s name I found a free pdf copy of his most important book.

Although that book was almost thousand pages, and its premise wasn’t right up my alley, on a whim I downloaded it, and started to read it, although I was already in the process of reading another book.

In three days I read just up to the paragraph of paramount interest to me.

After that serendipitous occurrence, I asked my inner guide how did it happen, and I was “told” that it was an example of changing the past to fit the present.

Surely, other people might come with other explanations, but I trust my inner guide over anybody else.

Can you tell me the name of this book? I’d like to read it too.

Reality transurfing. Steps I-VPaperback – April 18, 2016

by Vadim Zeland

But, I don’t recommend it. It has some good / interesting points, but I don’t agree with the author’s take on parallel universes, and alternate futures…

Well, I’ve been reading another book called Parallel Universes of Self by Frederick Dodson. He explains we can change the past literally.

1 Like

I believe that “parallel universes” are actually the universes our subconscious creates for each one of us, universes that don’t overlap, and that aren’t identical, although are variants of the same common blueprint.

The following Seth quotes are related to this:

Okay. One last question if you can help me. That would be helpful.
In Seth’s technique of changing the past event. He also mentions that others involved in the event can choose to accept or reject my version. What does he mean?

In my example, if I change the past event to where I believe I never met this person and have no recollection of this person, but the person rejects my version, would he come back in my life? I hope to never see him again in my life.

Don’t remember the context of “others involved in the event can choose to accept or reject my version” …

The idea is that we are all connected at subconscious level, and the reality is continuously negotiated between all the participants. Some participants are more assertive than others (more advanced reality creators), so the resulting blueprint end up in reflecting more of their desires.

To change the past you need to project into the space-time point you want, then pick an alternate probability. Theoretically, in the right trance state, with a desire intense enough, you should be able to completely transfer your focus personality there. Once you did it, you become that personality, and likely you’ll forget who you were, exactly as you forget when you wake up from a dream. You wouldn’t become the one you are now, with just a small difference. You might inadvertently pick a path that would be less desirable than your current one. You might even be dead already. On the other hand, you aren’t probably evolved enough to be able to reach the optimum state for such a projection.

Instead of trying to change your past, I’d recommend you just create your reality from now on, pushing out that person from your reality.

I think first you must start with Seth’s fundamental definition of experience: the simultaneous NOW moment. We experience time and space while in framework 1/ physical reality, but in framework 2 we experience the simultaneous now. This is the fundamental reality.

In this sense, time, past and present, are “constructs” of physical reality. They are offshoots of our particular neurological makeup. We experience time because we are designed to exist within such a framework, not because time is objectively “real”.

So I believe that Seth is simply saying that, from the position of the here and now, which is your point of power, past events only have the reality that you give them through your beliefs about them.

As regards another person’s reality, you can only “control” how you intersect. You cannot control another person’s experience, beliefs or intent. We are each distinct in our own self awareness, our sense of “I am-ness”.

What you are describing is, in effect, a kind of psychic murder. You want to eliminate a person as if they never existed. You cannot do this and you should deeply examine any such resistance you feel toward another.

However, you can change your experience of the person in the now and thereby change your “memory” of the person as it extends outward from the now. And you may go forward as if the person never existed, but you cannot erase another person. This would be solipsism which is definitely not what Seth is implying at all.

All things retain their own life and existence once they are realized. Your past will not cease to exist, but that does not mean it must remain a part of your own experience in the now if you deem it should not.

This is particularly important in cases of past trauma. It sometimes seems as if a traumatic even continues to have tremendous power in the now. But it need not. The effect of past trauma can be minimized to the degree that the effect is within the psyche only. Physical effects may sometimes remain, such as in war, but even these can be seen with different eyes, if one so believes.

No one is a prisoner, not to an idea, a memory, or another person. Even if current “evidence” might suggest otherwise. Once someone is ready to let go, as in an abusive relationship, and change the beliefs that have led to current conditions, one may let go. To paraphrase Eckhart Tolle (who was probably paraphrasing someone else) “how do you let go of a hot ember you are holding in your hand?” The answer is obvious.

I find the answer given by inavalan of interest because Seth continually reminds us to trust “our own impulses” because such impulses come from the “entity” which can be viewed as the “inner guide”, sometimes referred to in religious terms as the guardian angel.

Certainly there are caveats here, such as with persons who have deeply troubling and limiting beliefs about the self, good or evil, religion and demons, etc. One must first cast off such limiting core beliefs, such as the notion that man is basically evil and in need of salvation, etc. and reclaim the personal power that comes from realizing the multiverse is fundamentally good and that all things can be changed in the now moment.

I’m not committing any ‘psychic murder’ there’s no such thing. Or what you term. That’s your false interpretation of what I said and I do not take kindly to you implying that I have wrong intentions.
You do not know me. Please answer the question and stay on topic.

1 Like

I’m confident Seth’s intention is that this concept is to be taken literally - yes, you can change the past, and in fact it actually changes, and is not only re-interpreted - he states in several places that the moment creates reality, including its own pasts and futures within the Spacious Present. However, it’s very important here to avoid looking at this mechanistically or indulgently - always keep in mind that reality is a psychic construction of idea and belief. So to change your past you have to change your self, change your beliefs. So if you start there, you will realize that it’s not a matter of just physically changing the past or the techniques of doing so, because your current past is less desirable or inconvenient; changing the past becomes an effect, not a cause, and the real activity is your own inner development and growth. Sincerely change yourself and your past may in fact change, but you may or may not not be aware that it changed.


"Now: One event can be actualized by more than one probable self, however, and you will resemble some probable selves more than others. Because you are involved in an intricate psychological gestalt such as this, and because the connections mentioned earlier do exist, you can avail yourself to some extent of abilities and knowledge possessed by these other probable portions of your personality.

The connections make for quite constant “bleed-throughs.” Once you are aware of the probable system, however, you will also learn to become alert to what I will here call “benign intrusive impulses.” Such impulses would seem to be disconnected from your own current interests or activities; intrusive in that they come quickly into consciousness, with a sense of strangeness as if they are not your own. These can often offer clues of various kinds. You may know absolutely nothing about music, for example, and one afternoon while in the middle of some mundane activity be struck by a sudden impulse to buy a violin.

(Pause at 10:06.) Such an impulse could be an indication that another probable portion of your identity is gifted with that instrument. I am not telling you to run off and buy one, but you could however act on the impulse as far as is reasonably possible — renting a violin, simply acquainting yourself with violin concerti, etc.

You would learn the instrument far quicker, you see, if the impulse was originating with a probable self. It goes without saying then that probable selves exist in your “future” as well as your past. It is very poor policy to dwell negatively on unpleasant aspects of the past that you know, because some portions of the probable self may still be involved in that past. The concentration can allow greater bleed-through and adverse identification, because that part will be one background that you have in common with any probable selves who sprang from that particular source.

To dwell upon the possibility of illness or disaster is equally poor policy, for you set up negative webs of probabilities that need not occur. You can theoretically alter your own past as you have known it, for time is no more something divorced from you than probabilities are.

The past existed in multitudinous ways. You only experienced one probable past. By changing this past in your mind, now, in your present, you can change not only its nature but its effect, and not only upon yourself but upon others.

Pretend a particular event happened that greatly disturbed you. In your mind imagine it not simply wiped out, but replaced by another event of more beneficial nature. Now this must be done with great vividness and emotional validity, and many times. It is not a self-deception. The event that you choose will automatically be a probable event, which did in fact happen, though it is not the event you chose to perceive in your given probable past.

(10:24.) Telepathically, if the process is done correctly, your idea will also affect any people who were connected with the original event, though they can choose to reject as well as accept your version.

This is not a book on techniques, so I will not go into this particular method deeply, but merely mention it here. Remember, however, that in a most legitimate way many events that are not physically perceived or experienced are as valid as those that are, and are as real within your own invisible psychological environment.

There are in your terms, then, unlimited probable future events for which you are now setting groundworks. The nature of the thoughts and feelings you originate and those that you habitually or characteristically receive set a pattern, so you will choose from those probable futures those events that will physically become your experience. (Pause.)

Because there are bleed-throughs and interconnections, it is possible for you to tune into a “future event,” say of an unfortunate nature, an event for which you are headed if you continue on your present course. A dream about it, for instance, may so frighten you that you avoid the event and do not experience it. If so, such a dream is a message from a probable self who did experience the event.

(10:30.) So can a child then in a dream receive such communications from a probable future self, of such a nature that its life is completely changed. The entire identity is being now. All divisions are merely illusions, so one probable self can hold out a helping hand to another, and through these inner communications the various probable selves in your terms begin to understand the nature of their identity."

—SS Chapter 16: Session 566, February 15, 1971

"Now: In certain terms the past, present, and future [of your present life] are all compressed in any given moment of your experience.

Any such moment is therefore a gateway into all of your existence. The events that you recognize as happening now are simply specific and objective, but the most minute element in any given moment’s experience is also symbolic of other events and other times. Each moment is then like a mosaic, only in your current life history you follow but one color or pattern, and ignore the others. As I have mentioned [in other books], you can indeed change the present to some extent by purposefully altering a memory event. That kind of synthesis can be used in many instances with many people.

Such an exercise is not some theoretical, esoteric, impractical method, but a very precise, volatile, and dynamic way of helping the present self by calming the fears of a past self. That past self is not hypothetical, either, but still exists, capable of being reached and of changing its reactions. You do not need a time machine to alter the past or the future.

Such a technique is highly valuable. Not only are memories not “dead,” they are themselves ever-changing. Many alter themselves almost completely without your notice. In his (unpublished) apprentice novels, Ruburt (Jane) did two or three versions of an episode with a priest he had known in his youth. Each version at the time he wrote it represented his honest memory of the event. While the bare facts were more or less the same, the entire meaning and interpretation of each version differed so drastically that those differences far outweighed the similarities.

Because the episode was used on two or three different occasions, Ruburt could see how this memory changed. In most cases, however, people are not aware that memory changes in such a fashion, or that the events they think they recall are so different.

The point is that past events grow. They are not finished. With that in mind, you can see that future lives are very difficult to explain from within your framework. A completed life in your terms is no more completed or done than any event. There is simply a cutoff point in your focus from your framework, but it is as artificial as, basically, perspective is applied to painting.

It is not that the inner self is not aware of all of this, but that it has already chosen a framework, or a given frame of existence, that emphasizes certain kinds of experience over others."

—NoME Chapter 2: Session 806, July 30, 1977

I’m not a fan of “changing a past event”, rather I prefer to “dissolve” the past – as in it no longer exists. Pop that construct like it is a bubble and let it float away. It’s a subtle difference, since we tend to think in terms of our future based on our past.

Meaning that “today I don’t like this aspect, I will think of changing it”. But that is duality: I am still recognizing that past event in my attempts to change it. Hope that makes sense.

I fear you might tear a hole in the time space continuum.

I don’t see anything wrong with recognizing it (the past as you recall it, which we know that changes all the time).

You recognize it, you formulate the wish for the change (to dissolve you prefer), you experience the feeling (in trance), and so it is (eventually).

I don’t think there is a contradiction, or a duality. The difficulty arises from doubting you can do it, or having fears or misgivings about the consequences of that change.

I guess the “time space continuum” formulation gets a more intriguing meaning from the perspective of the inner senses, and the wider reality as described by Seth.

Think about the “time space continuum” in our dreams …

Inavalan, that was a joke. It was quoted from one of ‘Star Trek Next Generation’ television shows, most favorite line, they use it all the time. Seems like something is always about to “tear a hole in the space time continuum.”
However, to be serious, I would imagine the ramifications of trying to erase a person from one’s past experience would indeed have more far reaching effects than realized.

To remove a person from your past would imply to change a decision so that you didn’t meet that person. That would follow a different probability path, that might cause you meet the person at a different moment past or future (if somehow the weight of other probabilities was to eventually meet that person anyway).

You could just make the decision to not pursue a relationship, or change something in your behavior in that relationship.

One thing seems clear: you can’t change another person.

It is possible that, before you make a decision change in your past (as well as when you make a decision in your present), you do some projections following various probabilities, and pick the one that you find more agreeable.

This is a relevant quote to past probabilities’ implications, from Early Sessions Book 1, Session 18 1/22/1964:

Had you stayed in Miami you would have been ahead of the game, but you are still ahead of the game by getting out. Whenever Ruburt, or Jane, puts up such a fight against you there is good reason. Because Ruburt is trying to learn gentleness this time and because he is a woman strongly attached to you, his respect for you is boundless and in most cases he will give in to what he considers your superior judgment. When despite this the present Jane puts on a strong emotional guise it is because the intuitions push her to this extreme.
You would have had difficulty also had you stayed in Sayre on returning from Florida. You cannot allow these things to inhibit your spirit, but your mother cannot understand a man who does not have what she considers the ordinary social responsibilities.
The situation would have been much worse. Ruburt was overly weary, and if I may say so, bleary. He would have tried to make a serious mistake at this time. In pity and against his own intuition, he would have tried to move in with your parents. You would have both attempted to support them, with disastrous psychic effects. There is little more I would like to say here. I promise you that neither of you will feel any poor results from tonight’s long session. Please do take a break.
(Break at 11:47. Jane’s voice had become very quiet, quieter than at any previous time. We had something to eat, then Jane resumed dictating at 11:55.)
You’re far ahead for leaving Sayre to begin with, regardless of anything else. The most long-lasting tragedy would have occurred had you stayed there. The same sort of a possibility will not exist again. You avoided it together. Jane did push for the Elmira move, feeling instinctively that Sayre was a mistake.
If you remember, at one time when you had just arrived from Florida she convinced her landlady to give you an apartment with no money down. This was another opportunity out that would have avoided the nearby association with your parents, but was not taken.
By this time Ruburt-Jane was so confused that he would have taken the radio position in Elmira, and here again this would have been an error. In fact Joseph, and I do not say this to make you feel better but because it is the truth, you literally saved her life.
She would have taken a private plane to Minneapolis. The plane would have crashed, and she would not have survived. So if you think of opportunities missed think also of tragedies avoided, because but for you she would have taken the job to get out of Sayre. I wanted to bring all these points up this evening so that you will see that while you did not always take the best course, you had the sense between you to avoid the worst ones.

1 Like

The more interesting implication here is that someone is wanting to change something or an outcome of some kind. If you believe in the things Seth says, about creating one’s own reality, why not put energy into moving forward? Ofcourse, there is no context given by the person who posed the original question or situation, so it is all speculation. I think that is the thing about this site that I would love to see people in general, move away from, the impersonal to the more personal. In Jane and Robs group, the Seth Material applied to real life situation and circumstances, and the conversations made more sense because of that, it also allowed people to share experiences that we could all learn from…which is how this material is applied to our real lives in real time.