'Consciousness is Every(where)ness, Expressed Locally: Bashar and Seth'

Please find below a link to a paper with the title: ‘Consciousness is Every(where)ness, Expressed Locally - Bashar and Seth’.
The paper (17 pages) provides an overview of the cosmologies of Bashar and Seth. Both describe a hologram from the inside. They use different terminology and come from different angles but they basically describe the same structure of existence. There may be an illlustrated version in the future.
The paper provides 150 references, but only material from Bashar and Seth was used. In the case of Seth mainly UR 1 and 2.

Please find below a link to an illustrated version of the text. The text remained unchanged but the following quote has been added on page 14:

Seth: ‘You think of one I-self as a primary and ultimate end of evolution. Yet there are, of course, other identities with many such I-selves, each as aware and independent as your own, while also being aware of the existence of a greater identity in which they have their being. Consciousness fulfills itself by knowing itself. The knowledge changes it, in your terms, into a greater gestalt that then tries to fulfill and know itself, and so forth’.

This is a description/circumscription of the self-organising principle or paradigm.

1 Like

Names are meaningless. It is the message that is paramount, and not so much the messenger. ALL Speaker-Teachers, my term, use a variety of clever chosen “GUISES” and “PERSONAS” in their work as they package and organize information for your benefit geared to your level of understanding in the historical time period of your existence, The same message changes for different audiences and different comprehensions in different time periods, you see, and, if the particular teachers message happens to resonate with you, then you will gravitate towards that voice and benefit. It is best that you “sample” several such teachers to determine which one you will listen to for all teachers have different abilities, talents and skills, and different psychic spiritual “IQ’s” you understand as there are beginner teachers, intermediate teachers and also highly gifted knowledgeable teachers with deep databases from which they draw their information, all out there teaching, and you can quickly determine which is which by listening to their messages. I suggest sticking with the teacher that does the most complete, fulfilling job of taking you gently by the hand and depositing you in the loving nest of your own vast inner being and putting you in direct touch with your own inner self-being and your own inner teachers and guides, and then their job is done and you both move on to greater vistas of reality. – ron.

1 Like

Hi Lungdhen, Thanks for the PDF file. I’ve been a student of Consciousness for a very long time and have read everything I could find that “made sense” to me. When I first read The Seth Material, I was astounded. That seemed to be the only thing I had read that just fit what I had been looking for for years. I’ve also read Bashar - he also is interesting, however no matter what I read or who writes it I always come back to Seth.

Hi, for those who are a litte bit more scientifically minded: the article `Consciousness is every(where)ness: Bashar and Seth´ has been published in a scientific journal. The illustrations have, however, not been included.


Hi. I thought I could produce a part B of the article, comparing two outstanding illustrations, one of Bashar (the `nine levels of consciousness´ above) and one illustration depicting the entity, the larger self that Seth is constantly talking about, which seems to be at the same time the soul and the oversoul as well. (attached). https://www.gestaltreality.com/2013/05/22/the-multidimensional-self/

If everything that Seth is saying is correct (Bashar) one would assume that it should be possible to lay nine concentric circles over the Seth flower with the petals which symbolize single and individual incarnations, based on layers of the subconscious (the smaller square boxes) that include the experiences of `previous incarnations´ that are not you. The square boxes would then be corresponding somehow to the higher levels in Bashar´s system (Bashar: It´s up, not sub).

However, when Seth explained the construction of reality in ´Dreams, Evolution and Value Fulfilment´, basically Vol. 1, he explained the layers rather historically . He did actually mention `other layers´ of the self that would be involved in the various decision-making processes, i.e. relevant for choosing specific options for materialization from the vast bank of latent possibilities. But the information is too vague to work on a full-fledged comparison. Furthermore, Seth included the beginning and the emerging of our universe/multiverse, something that Bashar did not when explaining his nine levels of consciousness. Thus, for the time being, such a comparison cannot really be produced. By far too thin, the ice.

If you use the search engine you can go for persona and gestalt and you get immediately very informative material that helps to bring bits and pieces of the Seth cosmology together. You get for example the statement that `a gestalt, once formed, will never get less than it once was´.

The teachings of Seth are about a nested universe/multiverse that is composed of consciousness units (CUs) at various layers of organization. They are the smallest building blocks in creation and form larger entities. They can operate in wave or particle form. In physical reality, they are transformed (after undergoing endles intermediary steps) into electromagnetic units/psychological energy units. As long as you are physical, You exist as a conglomerate of such CUs that are transformed into electromagnetic units (EEUs), the basic building blocks of subatomic particles. After death you exist again as a conglomerate of CUs – without the intermediary step of the EEUs. Thus you exist as a conglomerate of CUs before physicalization as well as afterwards. Once you have left the 3D reality, you are a formation, a gestalt, an entity, composed of consciousness (consciousness units), but you are no longer particle-ized. You operate in wave-form as conglomerate of CUs. As long as you are physical you are particle-ized. Seth operates in wave form. He is not particle-ized.

Creation is about constantly forming higher and higher levels of such consciousness conglomerates, the gestalts. But once gestalts have been formed by CUs, the gestalts continue with their own development. They never become less (Seth). They can and do become more. Mammals reincarnate at the level of mammals. Thus a cat consciousness can be a dog, a mouse, or an elephant. But not a human being. Seth explicitely differentiates between mammals and humans. Once mammals have reached the stage where they can transform into a larger entity (based on value fulfillment), their consciousness leaves the level oft the mammals and materializes on the level of a higher entity, as a larger `gestalt´, presumably (or possibly) a human. The newly emerged human, i.e. the former cat cannot become a cat anymore. (The projection of a part of Seth´s consciousness into a dog fragment seems to be something different).

He emphasizes that humans did not evolve from animals. Their consciousness formation did. Our universe has been created by a gestalt of consciousness which is so big and superior that it can not materialize itself fully in 3d. It is what we call `God´. Parts of it have to remain constantly outside of the universe/multiverse as that entity, the deity, ist too large for materializing fully in the universe/ multiverse as we know it (our Framework 1).

Once entities managed to know themselves by way of value filfilment they transform into larger gestalts that then try to know themselves and evolve (Seth). And so forth. Thus, it may be plausible to assume that we are all such God-like entities in statu nascendi. Ultimately we will reach that level as well, but for the time being we are limited and experiencing our own issues in 3D. Once we have reached the level of deities, the initial deity (the idea of our old Creator God as a much superior gestalt) will have already evolved further upwards. All gestalts are upwardly mobile ad infinitum. That´s their ultimate task and destiny. That´s what creation is all about - based on value fulfilment. The development of entities such as ourselves into larger and larger gestalts corresponds to the topic of the `nursery of Gods´ that has been occasionally promoted in Jane Roberts own writings.

In her appartment, the cat Willie was constructing a bug on the wall. The bug on the wall was constructing a cat. Jane Roberts and Robert Butts did construct a bug, a cat, a chair, a table and themselves. Thus, there were four bugs, four cats, for chairs, four tables, four Jane Roberts, four Robert Butts. And they were all different. They were all either primary or secondary constructions. The primary construction formed by an entity (the self-image created by the cat, the self-image created by the bug, the self-image created by an individual person, etc.) is the manifestation of an idea of a person, animal or object. Cat, Bug, Jane Roberts, Robert Butts were in addition sharing telepathic information that was used for the creation of a surrounding that seemed to be plausible in terms of a commonly shared environment, despite significant differences in detail. (the co-creation of the bug by the cat in its own reality, the co-creation of the cat by the bug in its own reality, the co-creation of the cat by Jane Roberts in her own reality, the co-creation of Jane Roberts by Robert Butts in his own reality (If the individual construction of energy into matter is not performed correctly a black garden hose could turn into a black vicious snake, but that is extremely unlikely) (Seth). The reflection of a seemingly commonly shared outer environment is provided by the higher mind in Bashar´s system. The explanation provided by Seth is ´telepathy and other means´.

Session 71: „A primary construction is a psychic gestalt, formed into matter by a consciousness of itself. Such a primary construction is an attempt to create, in the world of matter, a replica of the inner psychic construction of the whole self. (…) Secondary physical constructions are those created by a consciousness of its conception of other consciousnesses, from data received through telepathy and other means.“

Thus there are consciousness units that cling together to form a self-image of an entity (small, bigger, again bigger, etc.), e.g. atom, molecule, cell, organ etc. as a primary construction and there are consciousness units that help form the same entities as secondary constructions in a commonly shared endeavor. But they are in turn also their own primary constructions and primary constructors as well.

It looks that in the process of forming larger and larger ´gestalts´of consciousness, the consciousness units that form the primary construction become more numerous. They cling together as ´like-minded´ partners, at the same time separating themselves as ´gestalt´ from what is not the ´gestalt´, i.e. what is ´other´. But they may still participate in the construction of ´what is other´ as secondary constructors, not as primary constructors. The higher the organizational form evolves as a ´gestalt´ the more consciousness units are involved in the primary construction and the less are involved in the secondary construction. Ultimately, once you have reached the level of the deity as a ´gestalt´ you cover the universe and everything in it (Seth) as a full-fledged primary construction. At that stage everything is a primary construction. You are God. You are the creator of everything.

To avoid misunderstandings: This is what I think at the moment, it´s a hypothesis. I think that´s basically Seth´s cosmology. It´s cybernetics. To the extent possible, one should examine that avenue further, based on the information provided by Seth. Actually he was using the term `unit´ in singular form for larger entities as well, i.e. units composed of thousands of CUs, units composed of thousands of individual units.

I thought I could produce a cybernetic analysis of the Seth material, but it´s too risky. First of all, terminology used has changed over time, and secondly, Seth was even playing with Robert Butts, especially when it came to the usage of the crucial term CUs more than a decade after it had been first introduced, looking in a mischievous way whether Robert Butts was clever enough to come forward with the proper gut feeling, the proper intellectual associations and interpretations that did fit. (`Dreams… ´, Vol. 1).

Thus, such a cybernetic analysis cannot really be produced. The ice is too thin. But my personal gut feeling says it´s exactly that way. Because it makes sense. It would be logical and it would be extremely elegant.

The level of the larger gestalt of mammals would or could be human. Or something else. At least Seth provided that differentiation in generic terms. Humans are not mammals according to him. It remains however unclear what the next level would or could be for humans. There may be intermediary steps as well, which are rather topics, themes, or ideas: e.g. a Napoleon composed of a few hundred or thousand of Napoleon-incarnations. The topic might be `Napoleonism´ then. (I don´t mean Bonapartism, but it could be that as well.). According to Bashar whales are physicalized oversouls of dolphins, the largest entities that can materialize in 3d.

Sooner or later the next level is the soul/oversoul. In Seth´s terminology a soul is what an oversoul is in Bashar´s system. An organizational form of consciousness in charge of millions of individual incarnations. According to Bashar a soul is rather narrowly linked to an individual incarnation. It is a sub-set of an oversoul, an individualized, single extension.

According to Seth there is an infinite number of infinitesimal units of consciousness, all representing All-that-is, all being fragments of All-that-is, all containing the entire knowledge of All-that-is. It could be that creation is about forming an infinite number of deities as primary constructions, a system where every unit is finally a deity but also part of secondary constructions in an infinite number of other reality constructions. Again: the idea of a hologram. Thus, every unit of consciousness would finally be an individualized `I´- version of All-that-is (Bashar). And as time does not exist you have already reached that level, but you took the decision to forget it.

1 Like

Thanks! It is refreshing to see a less typical interpretation of the Seth Material.

`Your genetic structure reacts to each thought that you have, to the state of your emotions, to your psychological climate. In your terms, it contains the physical history of the species in context with the probable future capabilities of the species. You choose your genetic structure so that it suits the challenges and capabilities of the species. You choose your genetic structure so that it suits the challenges and potentials that you have chosen. (Long pause.) It represents your physical reference point, your bodily framework. It is your personal physical property. It is a portion of physical matter that you have identified, filled out with your own identity. It is like a splendid ship, the body, that you have chosen ahead of time for a splendid challenging adventure—a ship that you have personally appointed that is equipped to serve as much as possible as a physical manifestation of your personhood. Some people, in beginning such a venture, will indeed insist upon an excellent vessel, with the most sophisticated mechanisms, equipped with grand couches and a banquet room. Others would want much more excitement, much more zest, and order then instead a less grand vessel, but one that went faster. Some would set goals for themselves that demanded that their powers of seamanship be tested. The analogy may be a simple one, yet each person chooses the living vessel of the body, with his or her own intents and purposes in mind. (Long pause.) In physical reality, if you will forgive me, life is the name of the game—and the game is based upon value fulfillment. That means simply that each form of life seeks toward the fulfillment and unfolding of all of the capacities that it senses within its living framework, knowing that in that individual fulfillment each other species of life is also benefited.´ (Seth, Session No. 910)

Please find below a link to an overview of the hierarchical structure of existence written by a biologist. The key driving force behind the order of everything as proposed and described in that article can be assumed to correlate with the entities, the gestalts, and the ideas in the nested cosmology of Seth, resp. the topics and themes of Bashar.


I don’t see such correlation in that article. Maybe you can point to some concrete examples. Also, I don’t see Seth describing a nested cosmology. A structure of gestalts of gestalts of consciousness doesn’t imply nesting. That author doesn’t mention gestalts, and doesn’t seem to describe such structures.

In Paul Helfrich´s comprehensive overview of the Seth Integral Conscious Creation Myth, the term nested has been used 33 times and it looks that the usage of the term in his article is in line with the definition of the word nested provided by the Cambridge Dictionary:

To put a piece of information, text, etc. inside another, or at a lower level in a system: Each document has a root element and all the elements must be nested within other elements. Text documents often comprise nested regions like lists within lists or procedures within procedures.

Paul Helfrich: `Again, there is no real beginning in terms of linear time, but a spacious present in which Consciousness experiences nested orders of perception (fields of consciousness) that support and nurture the emergence of our physical universe (Framework 1).´

Seth did not use the term nested, and the word does not appear when using the Seth search engine, thus it hasn´t been used by Jane Roberts or Robert Butts either. But what Seth is describing is actually not just nested in the sense of the Cambridge definition of procedures within procedures, it seems to be in addition holographic. That is however nearly impossible to visualize. But every unit of consciousness, whatever its part in creation (as a particle) is also part of the whole (as a wave).

Session No. 889: `Each “particleized” unit, however, rides the continual thrust set up by fields of consciousness, in which wave and particle both belong. Each particleized unit of consciousness contains within it inherently the knowledge of all other such particles—for at other levels, again, the units are operating as waves. Basically the units move faster than light, slowing down, in your terms, to form matter. (Pause.) These units can be considered, again, as entities or as forces, and they can operate as either. Metaphysically, they can be thought of as the point at which All That Is acts to form [your] world—the immediate contact of a never-ending creative inspiration, coming into mental focus, the metamorphosis of certainly divine origin that brings the physical world into existence from the greater reality of divine fact. Scientifically, again, the units can be thought of as building blocks of matter. Ethically, the CU’s represent the spectacular foundations of the world in value fulfillment, for each unit of consciousness is related to each other, a part of the other, each participating in the entire gestalt of mortal experience. And we will see how this applies to your attitudes toward specieshood, and man’s relationship with other conscious entities and the planet he shares with them.

CU’s can also operate as “particles” or as “waves.” Whichever way they operate, they are aware of their own existences. When CU’s operate as particles, in your terms, they build up a continuity in time. They take on the characteristics of particularity. They identify themselves by the establishment of specific boundaries.

In the beginning CU’s, then, units of consciousness, existing within a divine psychological gestalt, endowed with the unimaginable creativity of that sublime identity, began themselves to create, to explore, and to fulfill those innate values by which they were characterized. Operating both as waves and particles, directed in part by their own creative restlessness, and directed in part by the unquenchable creativity of All That Is, they embarked upon the project that brought time and space and your entire [universe] into being. They were the first entities, then.´

#1 It doesn’t matter what Helfrich, or anybody else including me, says or how he interprets the Seth material, but only how you interpret it, and that is / should be something that creates in your mind a clearer and clearer understanding of reality, less and less distorted by your beliefs and level of evolvement.

I see reality differently than you seem to, which is expected, and it is okay.

gestalt: A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.

Paul Helfrich: `Again, there is no real beginning in terms of linear time, but a spacious present in which Consciousness experiences nested orders of perception (fields of consciousness) that support and nurture the emergence of our physical universe (Framework 1).´

By the way, I believe that this quote reflects Helfrich’s major misunderstanding, both of reality and of the Seth material.

gestalt: A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.

The definition is useful and possibly the one Seth may have had `in mind´. There are key terms used in the Seth material (scattered across 40 books) such as entity, gestalt, idea. They have never been defined. At the moment I am not yet able to define them. Too much is still unclear, in particular the role of the CUs that become the EE units for the sake of a temporary physicalization/particle-ization. There seems to be a difference between an entity and a gestalt. The CUs are not just elements aggregated into a gestalt, that then becomes a larger gestalt, thereby undergoing a kind of quantum jump transformation (e.g. mammal to human). And they are also not just the tiniest physical elements somehow mechanically aggregating into subatomic particles, atoms, molecules and so forth.

The definition of the gestalt helps, but it doesn´t clarify what the purpose or composition of a gestalt is. It rather says what it is not. And it does not exclude hierarchical structures or nested relationships (procedures within procedures, etc.) below the threshold of a qualitative change At the moment I think the ´gestalt´ is somewhere in between entities and ideas. Cautiously formulating I would say - that Seth says - entities form gestalts for the sake of materializing ideas. CUs are entities.

Paul Helfrich: `Again, there is no real beginning in terms of linear time, but a spacious present in which Consciousness experiences nested orders of perception (fields of consciousness) that support and nurture the emergence of our physical universe (Framework 1).´

What is wrong with that Helfrich statement? It seems to be in line with the information provided by Seth in ´Dreams…Vol.1´.

Are you familiar with the Seth material or are you mainly interpreting and reframing it through the lens of other explanatory approaches, behavioral science, psychology, philosophy, etc.? The first two books of the early sessions were devoted to psycho-physics. It is the state of the psyche that determines the materialization of an outer reality.

I did post the article on the hierarchy of consciousness because of the specific scientific background. Having been working as an experimental biologist the author seems to be nevertheless impressed (and influenced?) by Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Lamarck, Anti-Darwinism. These teachings and schools play a role in the Seth material as well. The monads of Leibniz are similar to the CUs.

Thanks for your reply. Reading / browsing your earlier posts on this thread, I misunderstood your take on the Seth material. This post clarifies it. We differ.