1. ED asks: “I have not read any of the Seth books, nor do I believe Jane's claims about who or what Seth is. I've heard about Seth and his ideas from your posts. You say that Sethism does not justify killing others. But it does. Sethism says there are no victims. That is a justification. Let me explain. If I killed my wife, since my wife was not a victim, then effectively I have committed no crime. I am as innocent as she was. How can a crime be committed if there was no victim? This is not a very healthy state of affairs - that is why I believe Sethism is so dangerous.”
Barrie Responds:
ED, excuse my example for a moment, but if you begged me to cut off your fingers and cook them in an oven--and I agree to your request--a crime is still committed even tho you begged me to do so.
Also, Seth's philosophies are not meant to become the foundations of or standard of evidence in regard to the laws and court cases.
And on top of that, there is one prime directive in Seth's philosophy, repeated often. And that is, "Murder Is Never Justified." Period. The concept of nobody being a victim, does not excuse the murder. Murder is wrong. Period. Even if someone "volunteers" for that murder--that does not justify committing the murder.
If you had read any of the many Seth books you would know that Seth advocates compassion, love and helping others. He is against all killings. He is against animal experiments. He is against all cruelties. Please note, that at the end of my answer to you i have excerpted some actual seth quotes on this subject.
He is not simply against these things, but he writes at length about them--explaining in details the reasons behind his opposition.
Remember, ED, Seth's ideas of there being no "victims" on a deep, inner level--is his attempt to explain the actually process of or nature of how personal experiences actually come about. It's a within-the-psyche look at what actually occurs between people when they interact.
This deep, inner level may be thought of as the quantum level of Seth's ideas or quantum metaphyics; as opposed to classic physical reality or classic metaphysics.
Quantum metaphysics would involve the invisible, inner realms of reality--how physical reality comes into existence and what is behind its creation (there are no victims; simultaneous time; thought creates reality; telepathic agreements).
Meanwhile, classic metaphysics would involve the waking, conscious realms of reality--the reality our conscious minds deal with and that our physical senses perceive. This would involve issues as perceived by the conscious mind and as they appear in classic reality. On this level, the level of dualities, questions may be reasonable asked which involve issues of victimization, linear time, poverty, riches, happiness, depression, and so forth.
So, if a person "volunteers" to be murdered; and another person "agrees" to commit the murder--no one is excused of this crime. And the "volunteering" occurs on the quantum level metaphysics; while the "crime" occurs on the classic level of physical reality as is perceived by our physical senses and conscious self.
The concepts of "volunteering" and "no victims" are not meant to be used in a court of law. Additionally, there is a lot more to the "agreements that are made."
To simplify things for a moment. Let's just say that we choose physical existence in order to experience the full range of human emotions and to become consciously aware of our innate love and compassion.
A major ingredient of this learning process involves choice and free will. These choices include the choice to kill or not to kill; and the choice to help or not to help.
In order to learn about love & compassion, you would need people in need. And ONE of the reasons behind why some people "choose" a suffering or painful existence (and it is not the only reason, but one of the reasons) is precisely to help others learn about love & compassion.
In any case, my point is--even tho, on one deep, spiritual, inner, quantum level, there are no victims. On another conscious, physical, surface, classic level, the level of every day conscious life--there are victims.
This is not a contradiction. In the same way that light is "one" until a prism breaks it up into "many" -- so, too, is the "victimless" concept broken up into the functional appearance of "victim" -- when it passes thru the "prism" of the conscious, physical realm.
This is not really that complicated. For a simple example, let's say a person outright volunteers to be tortured to death. He is clearly a volunteer--putting ads in newspapers and asking people outright.
People still have the choice to say, "No, I will not torture you to death." And, if someone agrees to it, and says yes, that person is not excused because the guy begged him to do it.
This same concept holds true in Seth's philosophy. The only difference is, that the volunteering (and often the agreements) occur on a subconscious level. At the same time, the harmful behavior is not "excusable" because the person "volunteered."
Now, there are reasons and beliefs behind the person's request to be killed and the other person's agreement. These issues must be dealt with in one lifetime or another. Hence, in these lifetimes--the choice to kill or not--must still be there--so the "test" (an analogy only) can be taken--and the choice to kill or not kill be made once again.
Eventually, the person's self will once again have a conscious awareness of his innate love & compassion--and become one of those people who say, "No. I will not kill you."
In today's world, we have millions upon millions of people saying "yes." Yes--when it comes to the death penalty; yes--when it comes to war; yes when it comes to revenge; yes--when it comes to self-defense; yes--when it comes to animal experiments, and so on.
So, the subject of "murder" or "killing" is actually more far-reaching than the blatant criminal examples of which we have been writing.
Additionally, in his books, Seth directly talks about this. As I have said, he often repeats in various ways that killing is wrong, murder is never justified, and the goal is to act in accordance with your innate goodness and compassion.
No one could read Seth's books and think that it is ok to kill.
I hope this makes it more clear why Seth is really not dangerous at all. If people actually followed what Seth asks of them, they would be helping each other & not one murder or act of cruelty would ever be committed. And those who "volunteered" to be killed--would be met with helpers to help them to understand what beliefs they had about themselves and their lives that led them to volunteer to be killed.
PS: Following, let's let Seth speak for himself--so all can decide if Seth says that it is OK to kill.
(Seth Speaks; Session 550--note that this session occurred in 1970, during the Vietnam War):
“Within your system, to kill is obviously a moral crime, but to kill another in punishment only compounds the original error.
“Someone once said, 'Turn the other cheek if you are attacked.' The original meaning of that remark should be understood. You should turn the other cheek because you realize that basically the attacker only attacks himself.
“Then you are free, and the reaction is a good one. If you turn the other cheek without this understanding, and feel resentful; or if you (do it) out of a feeling of pseudomoral superiority, then the reaction is far from adequate...
“A generation that hates war will not bring peace. A generation that loves peace will bring peace.
“To die with hatred for any cause or people, or for any reason, is a great disadvantage...In the next life you will be working with those attitudes that are now yours. If you insist upon harboring hatreds within you now, you are very likely to continue doing so...
“It is foolish...to hate a storm or shake your fists at it and call it names...It is useless to personify a storm and treat it as a demon, focusing on...those elements that to you appear destructive...
“Change of form is not destructive. The explosive energy of a storm is highly creative. Consciousness is not annihilated...
“I am emphasizing the issue of hate...because its results can be so disastrous. A man who hates always believes himself justified. He never hates anything that he believes to be good. He thinks he is being just, therefore, in his hatred; but the hatred itself forms a very strong claim that will follow him throughout his lives, until he learns that only the hatred itself is the destroyer...
“There is nothing to be gained, either, by hating hatred. You fall into the same trap.
“What is needed is a basic trust in the nature of vitality, and faith that all elements of experience are used for a greater good, whether or not you can perceive the way in which 'evil' is transmuted into creativity...
“The most important idea to be remembered is that no one thrusts the experience of any given lifetime upon you. It is formed faithfully according to your own emotions and beliefs.
“The great power of energy of love and creativity is apparent in the mere fact of your existence.
“This is the truth so often forgotten--that the combination of consciousness and existence continues and absorbs those elements that seem to you so destructive.
The following Seth quotes are from "The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events"
(Session 835--1979): “Many thousands may die in a particular battle or war, for example. The deaths are accepted almost as a matter of course. These are victims of war, without question. Since the guns are quite real...it seldom occurs to anyone that these are (also) victims of beliefs.
“Wars are basically examples of mass suicide--embarked upon...with all of the battle's paraphernalia, carried out through mass suggestion, and through the nation's great resources, by men who are convinced that the universe is unsafe, that the self cannot be trusted, and that strangers are always hostile.
“You take it for granted that the species is aggressively combative. You must outthink the enemy nation before you yourself are destroyed. The paranoiac tendencies are largely hidden beneath man's nationalistic banners...
“People die when they are ready to die, for reasons that are their own. No person dies without a reason. You are not taught that, however, so people do not recognize their own reasons for dying, and they are not taught to recognize their own reasons for living--because you are told that life itself is an accident in a cosmic game of chance.
(Session 850): “Idealism also presupposes 'the good' as opposed to 'the bad,' so how can the pursuit of the 'the good' often lead to the expression of 'the bad?' For that, we will have to look further...
“There is one Christian commandment that can be used as a yardstick...'Thou shalt not kill.' That is clear enough...'Thou shalt not kill' says you shall not kill your neighbor no matter how you feel about him.
“So let us say in a new commandment: 'Thou shalt not kill even in the pursuit of your ideals.'
“What does that mean? In practical terms it would mean that you would not wage war for the sake of peace. It would mean that you did not kill animals in experiments, taking their lives in order to protect the sacredness of human life.
“That would be a prime directive: 'Thou shalt not kill even in the pursuit of your ideals' -- for man has killed for the sake of his ideals at least as much as he has ever killed for greed, or lust, or even the pursuit of power on its own merits...
“You are a fanatic if you consider possible killing for the pursuit of your idea...It means that you are not willing to take the actual steps in physical reality to achieve the ideal, but that you believe that the end justifies the means:
“You say, 'Certainly some lives may be lost along the way, but overall, mankind will benefit.'
“That is the usual argument. The sacredness of life cannot be sacrificed for life's convenience, or the quality of life itself will suffer.
“In the same manner, say, the ideal is to protect human life, and in the pursuit of that ideal you give generations of various animals deadly diseases, and sacrifice their lives. Your justification may be that people have souls and animals do not, or that quality of life is less in the animals...
“but regardless of those arguments, this is fanaticism--and the quality of human life itself suffers as a result, for those who sacrifice any kind of life along the way lose some respect for all life, human life included.
“The ends do not justify the means.”
(Session 854): “The male scientist considers the rocket his private symbol of sexual power. He feels he has the prerogative to use power in any way he chooses. Now, many scientists are 'idealists' ... They become fanatics when they...defile life in a misguided attempt to understand it.
“Women make a grave error when they try to prove their 'equality' with men by showing that they can enter the armed forces, or go into combat as well as any man. War always makes you less as a species than you could be.
“Women have shown uncommon good sense in not going to war, and uncommon bad sense by sending their sons and lovers to war.
“Again, to kill for the sake of peace only makes you better killers, and nothing will change that. In any war, both sides are fanatical to the extent that they are involved.
“I am quite aware that often war seems to be your only practical course, because of the set of beliefs that are, relatively speaking, worldwide.
“Until you change those beliefs, war will seem to have some practical value--a value which is highly deceptive, and quite false.
“Fanatics always use ringing rhetoric, and speak in the highest terms of truth, good and evil, and particularly of retribution.
“To some extent, capital punishment is the act of a fanatical society: The taking of the murderer's life does not bring back the victim's, and it does not prevent other men from committing such crimes.
“I am aware that the death penalty often seems to be a practical solution--and indeed many murderers want to die, and are caught because of their need for punishment.
“Many now--and I am speaking generally--are in the position they are because they so thoroughly believe what all of you believe to a large extent: that you are flawed creatures, spawned by a meaningless universe, or made by a vengeful God and damaged by original sin.
“Criminals act out those beliefs to perfection. Their 'tendencies' are those that each of you fears you possess. Science and religion each tell you that left alone you will spontaneously be primitive creatures, filled with uncontrolled lust and avarice.
“Both Freud and Jehovah, gave you that message. Poor Darwin tried to make sense of it all, but failed miserably.”
2. Marino Comments: “Everything is good, everything is for the best, everything is light, everything is happiness. The beliefs have no consequences besides love. Oh yeah, sure."
Barrie Responds:
There are multiple ways of viewing a situation. On a simple level, if someone is in a real bad car accident and "only" breaks both his arms, we commonly may say: "Wow, you were really lucky, you could have been killed."
Now, we don't mean that the person was lucky to be in the accident in the first place. We mean that he was lucky that he wasn't killed. There are different levels we speak on. So, it would be inappropriate for someone to say, "Oh, yeah, how can you say the guy was lucky--he broke both his arms, for crying out loud!"
This is an analogy concerning how you interpret the phrases "Everything is good, everything is for the best."
On one every-day, conscious level, everything certainly is not good, as you know. And everything isn't for the best when it comes to the well-being of one's every-day conscious self and body. On another deeper level, everything is ultimately for the best--because each event you get involved in furthers your journey of self-awareness and self-understanding. This doesn't mean it is not also horrible and seemingly not for best--for the particular physical body and conscious self experiencing the event on the "surface" level of physical reality (as with our lucky & unlucky fellow in the car accident).
Actually, in these types of situations, it is a question of focus: Which level of beliefs or level of reality you do you want to focus on and look for the answers? The surface level only? The deeper levels only? Or both levels?
Now, try to understand what I mean here. Since I believe that death holds no end, and (for arguments sake) we gather and carry what we have learned in an accumulative fashion from one life to the next--therefore, any horrible death or misfortune still adds to the accumulation of knowledge and lessons of the self which has many different existences in many different bodies. So, from this perspective only, then, it is for the best. Like from the perspective of not getting killed, the guy with two broken arms was lucky.
Please understand, that from this deep, inner, "quantum," spiritual point of view, even tho things are horrible and miserable from the experience and perspective of the one incarnation experiencng the event--all really is for the best. But this is only true from the deep, inner POV of which I speak. The soul's point of view, so to speak.
Again, this spiritual POV does not negate or deny the other level of reality in which all is NOT for the best--and all or much may be painful and miserable. Both POVs coexist--in the same manner that our accident victim may be both lucky and unlucky at the same time. Lucky not to have been killed; but unlucky to have been in the accident in the first place. In our example, now, it may be for the best that this person was in the accident from the full and deep perspective taking into account all of his incarnational journeys; but it certainly still is NOT for the best for the poor guy with the broken arms.
Now, concerning the next phrase you mention: "Everything is light." This phrase is not related at all to the concept of "everything is for the best." This is a totally different concept, as I understand it.
"Everything is light" means that besides what our five senses perceive as physical reality, there is another part of reality that consists of energy and energy forms. The way these energy forms sometime "bleed through" into physical reality--is in the form of light. In other words, what appears to be light is the way a person can sometimes perceive this energy form, or "spirit" form.
I am asking you to try to understand the concept of "everything is light," and not try to agree with it.
And that concept is this: Everything that is physical consists of this "invisible" energy--which sometimes "bleeds through" into physical reality in the appearance of "light" to those who perceive it.
Again, I am not asking you to agree with this. When it comes to these inner questions of spirituality, I ask you only to listen to yourself and trust yourself when it comes to interpreting the nature of reality.
But I am asking you to understand the terms you have put into your post. "All is for the best" means one thing; and "everything is light" means something else...as far as my beliefs and understandings regarding those terms.
And now for the last term you threw in, "Everything is happiness." This one I have never heard before, nor do I believe. And since you are writing me, I must tell you that I don't believe this statement.
I don't believe everything is happiness; nor does Seth teach that in his books. Emotions are what they are, and have their own integrity. Sadness exists; grief exists; joy exists; happiness exists; etc etc etc. Happiness is happiness. Sadness is sadness.
It is very important to recognize, feel, and accept each emotion as it springs up within you. The emotion is part of a map, so to speak, which helps to guide you on your inner journey of self-understanding and self-awareness. When trying to understand yourself, to deny you feel an emotion, to shade that emotion, to minimize it, or call it something else--would only hinder your attempt to understand your self and why you do what you do and feel what you feel.
Well, be well and be happy. I wish you as much strength as you wish for yourself in order for you to keep believing all that you do....and that you should both respect and love yourself for believing it.
3. Marino States: “You seem to assume as a premise that your beliefs are right and then close your mind to any other possibility.”
Barrie Responds:
Again, there are as many perspectives to the term "beliefs" as there are to the term "lucky." In other words, there are many levels of beliefs.
On one level, it would be very silly for anyone to believe that our beliefs are not open to question and challenge as a matter of course. For a simple, surface example: If you believe that someone went with you to the movies, and then you found out otherwise, that is was actually someone else who had gone with you, then this belief can and should be changed. Altho it does make total sense to believe what you believe until you are proven wrong. Nothing concerning the "true" nature of reality is being challenged in this first, surface example.
Then, there is another level of beliefs which concern how you think things happen, but also don't challenge your beliefs concerning the "true" nature of reality. For example: If you believe that it's OK to eat fatty red beef; and then you change your belief, based on new input or new information you read in the newspaper; and then you change your belief and now think that it is harmful to eat fatty, red beef.
In this case, your major beliefs about health and the human body and disease are not being thrown into question--what is in question is what actually causes the harm and what does not.
There is a third level of beliefs that are not so easy to change. It is on this level of beliefs, that we ALL believe we are right. These beliefs include topics like: the nature of reality; the nature of good & evil; the nature of love & sex; the nature of right and wrong; of illness and health, and so on. We don't easily challenge or change these believes because if they were open to everyday debate, then we would not be able to function properly in our daily lives. All of your morals, world views, and beliefs about the nature of reality would always be in question. There would hardly be any continuity to your daily experience and decision-making proccesses.
This third level of beliefs includes many beliefs held on the subconscious level.
Each of us have an intimate relationship with our selves and with these deeply held "thrid-level" beliefs. If someone says, "There is life after death." And someone else says, "That is ridiculous!" The second person is making a strong statement of belief concerning the nature of death.
These deep "third-level" beliefs can be changed, but it usually takes extremely powerful events to do so. Simply having intellectual debates on the subjects would rarely cause a person to alter these deeply-held beliefs. In fact, intellectual debates often help to further cement these beliefs deeper in place.
These "third-level" beliefs are often altered by traumatic events or unusual or unique and powerful events: the death of a loved one; a tragic accident; a near-death experience; an earthquake; and so on. In fact, one of the reasons behind agreeing to the physicalization of such an event is your life--is precisely to question certain deeply-held beliefs.
Thus, while it is true that these beliefs may be changed, they are not changed as often as the other two type of "surface" beliefs. These deep, subconscious beliefs are beliefs we base our entire personalities on.
For example, if we questioned every day, from the start, our whole belief system about what is right & wrong, and good & bad--we would not be able to get thru the day. So, if I say, I think that people are intrinsically good, this falls into this third-level category of beliefs. These are within that level of beliefs that all of us "assume as a premise are right and then close our minds to any other possibility.” We keep our minds closed, until a traumatic event open them up again.
So, conversely, if you held the belief that people were not intrinsically good or that people were intrinsically bad, then that would be YOUR third-level belief that you think is right and correct.
These beliefs create the nature of our personal realities--and greatly affect the decisions we make about our lives.
Then, there is a fourth level of beliefs. These remain totally subconscious for the most part. These are the rockbed beliefs that we bring with us from before our birth--beliefs we agree to before we choose to be born. These beliefs include things like gravity; not being able to grow back an arm that was chopped off by a tractor, and so on.
Again, please understand, I do not expect you to change your beliefs on the issues at hand. All I ask is for you to try to understand what I am saying, and not try to agree with it.
Anyone who disagrees with me, would have their own set of explanations for these things that make total sense to those people. Their beliefs and explanations may make my beliefs and explanations seem totally wrong (and vice versa). This type of "seeing" is what I call "seeing things thru the filter of your belief system."
Actually, tho, when it comes to those who think that life cannot continue past death, I don't simply think they are wrong. In my system of beliefs, I have an explanation why they think so, therefore, I can understand where they are coming from and what they are "missing" in their views on the nature of death--all, of course, filtered thru my beliefs about the nature of death.
To those who think that life ends with death, I say: I understand your explanations as far as they go. I simply think that there are further realities and explanations beyond your point of view or reach of beliefs, which you do not yet realize.
On the other hand, those who belief that death is the end--have no place at all in their beliefs for people who think there is life after death. Well, the only place they have is to call these people crazy, or foolish, or desperate, or tricksters.
Therefore, my beliefs of life-after-death are just labeled wrong, insane, noncritical, and so on. Those believing in the truth of these negative labels cannot see that these labels stem from their BELIEFS about reality and the nature of death; and not actually from any REALITY that may exist outside of their system of beliefs.
By definition, by the way I define beliefs, we all must believe that our subconscious beliefs are right. This is part of the nature of our personal reality and the basis for our physical existence. We all do and we all must--believe these beliefs when it comes to this level of beliefs.
For examply, you may believe that the nature of reality is such that the scientific method is the best way to learn about reality. That is your belief and you think you are right. And you close your mind to any other possibility by pointing to reason and logic, as dictated to you by your belief systems. I do this, too, when it comes to my spiritual beliefs about the nature of reality. We all do this. This is the nature of how we function in our daily lives.
I point to the reason and logic which naturally develops from my belief system; and use my reason and logic to explain away or put your concepts into their "proper" place in reality (as I see that reality thru the filters of my belief systems). My place for the scientific view is a box called: "They believe what they do because they see only physical reality as all there is to reality."
Now, you believe that you ARE open to change your beliefs--if only "proof" were given to you. Of course, that proof would have to be acceptable proof when viewd thru the filter of your beliefs. And so it would be with me.
But both and ALL of us are so steeped in our deeply-held subconscious beliefs (as we must be in order to function on a daily basis), that it is almost impossible to begin to doubt and step outside those systems of beliefs and begin to accept explanations that come from other systems of beliefs.
We both, along with the rest of the physical human race, assume as a premise that these deeply-held beliefs are right. And, as a matter of course and survival, we close our minds to any other possibilitities--until some traumatic event of some kind, jolts our minds open again.
And one of the reasons why we agreed to physically experience the traumatic event--would be precisely to jolt our minds open and reexamine these beliefs. Ultimately, we may keep the same beliefs, lessen them, strengthen them, or discard them--but we would have reexamined them.
4. Anonymous asks: “I have read over and over that death is nothing more than shedding ones old skin and that the most important aspect of living is to acquire knowledge and to love others as one loves oneself and that each life is a lesson in which your soul grows. What eludes me is, why,would a soul be born solely to be abandoned by their parent and left to die on the streets of the US, China, India, or some other place? What could that soul learn? And what lessons are to be learned for the parents and cultures that accepts this? I don't understand.”
Barrie Responds:
The answers to your question lie in realms outside our space and time. Our personalities, too, exist outside of space and time...altho they are quite at home in their physical bodies.
First, tho, you must begin to figure out if you believe that we choose and create our reality--or if we are victims in a random universe outside of our control.
If you believe that we are victims, then my answers may not help or soothe your curiosity or anguish. My answers stem from the concept that we create our own reality with our free will, beliefs and innate ESP--in concert with all others involved in any event we find ourselves in.
All souls who enter fetus' choose to come into their bodies knowing full-well beforehand, from the "before life" perspective which exists outside of our time and space, what probable events or things may happen to them. In fact, what happens to them is intimately connected and chosen with the needs of their souls--as determined by their souls.
Remember, too, our souls are not separate from our personalities. We are our souls couched in flesh.
The personality or self which inhabits the fetus may alter these "pre-birth" choices at any time, using the free will that all living creatures possess. This is actually what is behind some miscarriages and abortions.
A fetus who lives only to be abandoned on the streets, killed in a car crash or born to a Mom killed in car crash, by definition, chose for it to be this way (as did all involved) before it happened...and then didn't change his mind...and then shared in the creation of the event or situation...in order to experience whatever event did occur. If not, the event would not have been physicalized.
I am not speaking of fate or destiny--I am speaking of free will and free choice--and of choices made from a realm in which we consciously know that death is no end--and that we have survived countless deaths already--and will do so again. We focus on this realm while fully conscious and physical--as well as in the dream state, meditative state, and in the afterlife and beforelife states. We may not have conscious memories of our sojourns into this inner realm--but we make these journeys a continual basis...even while typing at the keyboard and reading the monitor.
The accident or abandonment may have been agreed to for a wide variety of reasons. Perhaps to draw attention to the plight of children and the lack of love and compassion in the world. Perhaps to help and spur on others now living and maybe who they knew and who have helped them in a past life--and now they return that help by giving them spiritual questions to mull over and think about concerning life, death, compassion, etc.--in order to get them back on the spiritual path they have abandoned.
Perhaps the abandoned child has abandoned children in a past life; or lived such a life of comfort and ease that he had forgotten the emotions which exist behind the crying eyes of those who suffer. By choosing a life of suffering, the soul would be reminded of these forgotten feelings and emotions--by experiencing them thru that part of itself it has made physical.
Suffering and death are not random events that hang forever over our heads on tenuous threads...and may fall at any time upon us. They are not "punishments" for some "karma" handed down by someone or something. Karma does not exist in that manner at all. Death is simply a transference of energy into a form that we humans cannot physically perceive. There is no end of personality; or ceasing of communication. Right now, all of us are as dead as we'll ever be.
A child abandoned on the streets who eventually dies, a fetus "killed" after a car crash are both as alive as you or me right now...as is any so-called "dead" person. Even aborted fetuses choose to exist for their short time...agreeing that an abortion will be performed or a miscarriage would occur. There are no accidents. There are no victims. There is only the appearance of accidents and victims...so that the souls can have their physical experiences and experience the accompanying feelings and emotions.
Again, these types deaths and/or suffering usually help to remind the "living" people left behind or who witness the suffering to try to rediscover or reconnect with their innate love & compassion or get back in touch with some spiritual things they may have forgotten.
Those who live lives of suffering choose so for their own reasons. This does not mean that we should let them suffer because they have "chosen" to do so. Just the opposite is the case! One of those reasons people would choose to suffer would be to offer others the chance to help them. In other lifetimes, the roles may be reversed.
Also, whatever it is that makes them suffer--disease, child abuse, societal neglect--their suffering creates a public discourse on that particular topic or topics and on the plight of all those who similarly suffer. This, too, is one of their purposes.
The lesson to be learned for the parents and cultures that accept this is not to accept it any longer.
Likewise, wars should teach us not to kill; and the cruel should teach us kindness. Are there other ways to learn these lessons? Yes. Do we sometimes choose these other ways? Yes. Do we always choose these other ways? Obviously not. The ways we choose have to do with other personal items and issues in our lifetimes' journeys.
Well, that's all for now; and I do hope I have reached some people.
5. Maura asks: “I had a question on your view on reincarnation. I have brain damage but was born normal. I was wondering if I passed on, could I reincarnate normally for next time and where would that intelligence come?”
Barrie Responds:
Yes, you may reincarnate normally the next time. The new intelligence of the new incarnation is created by the Oversoul or Whole Self. It actually is a new focus for the Self. Its like you are looking out the window--and then you decide to turn around and look at the lamp. The "you" looking out the window (or focusing on the window) is one incarnation; and the "you" looking at the lamp (or focusing on the lamp) is another. In this analogy--out the window may be 1710; and the lamp may be 1990. So, when a "new" reincarnation self is created--what is really happening is that a part of the Oversoul or Whole Self has simply decided to focus on something else.
To use another analogy--it would be like a person taking up a new hobby. You are still the same person--even when you focus on a new hobby.
Let's say a person, Jill, was all these roles: a mother; a daughter; a sister; a bowler; a shopper; a secretary; a wife; and a lover. Altho there is only one person--she "is" all of these roles or selves. The "mother" may learn something from the "bowler" and vice versa. Each part of the self may learn from other parts--yet there is no true separation. And each of these roles exist simultaneously within Jill.
In this manner, all of your incarnations exist simultaneously. Your so-called past, present and future incarnations exist right now. "New" incarnations may appear in the past or future. You can die in 1999 and be reborn in 1960 or 2050.
So, you really don't have to wait for any reincarnation to occur. All of your incarnations exist right now--and you have access to them in the dream state. The subconscious mind is the portal to all these other incarnational selves--of which you, Maura, are one. You may learn from their experiences and they may learn from yours. The is a constant give-and-take between all incarnational selves.
I hope this has helped you a little.
6. Fred States: "I don't have any beliefs about the nature of reality. I do, on the other hand, have verifiable information about it."
Barrie Responds:
First, I'd like to clearly state that I do accept and believe that the scientific principles work amazingly well and lead to great answers and discoveries. The only caveat to that is that I believe there is more going on that these scientific tests have yet to "touch" or hit upon--and this includes what is now called the nonphysical realm.
Fred, you say have no beliefs about reality. Please try to understand, that I am talking about beliefs like the following which you may hold:
1. Physical reality is all there is to reality;
2. Something is not valid unless it can be tested and retested and give the same results;
3. When you die it is the end of consciousness and everything, etc.
4. "I don't have beliefs about the nature of reality, but I do have verifiable information."
If you would just write one simple paragraph on why science and its methods work--you will have perfect examples of the beliefs of which I speak.
All people have belief systems--both about themselves personally and about the universe at large. They believe that they are good, bad, that life is tough, or life is easy...that people should work hard for their money...or should run scams...and so forth.
People also have many beliefs about life...about what physical reality is or isn't...about what happens when you die, and so forth. They have beliefs about these things.
These are the beliefs we are concerned with in our discussion: Beliefs about the true nature and origin of physical reality.
People who think that the scientific view of things is totally 100 percent fact and true (and I am not referring to the test results which are verifiable, but rather the beliefs or ideas behind the creation of tests in the first place--which draw the limits for the tests.)
These people have certain belief systems about what reality is. It is because of their beliefs about reality that they can so fully look to and believe in the scientific way to look at things.
Again, I believe in the scientific way, as far as it goes. But I also believe there is "more" to reality than the scientific way explores--and that "more" needs a new and different way--because it deals with a subjective reality and the realities which the subjective, subconscious mind is a portal to.
I believe that there is more to Reality than physical reality. This belief dictates to me to look for evidence that proves me correct. My evidence is found in precognitive dreams, OOBs, NDEs, coincidences, psychic experiences, and so on. I have my own set of beliefs about physical reality...that make my beliefs make sense to me and which make my "evidence" valid.
What I don't think you don't yet believe or maybe understand...is that when you, Fred, believe something about the nature of physical reality...you insist that your beliefs are facts...and not beliefs. I see your "facts" as beliefs. I'm NOT talking on the classic, physical level of reality which observes that water consists of hydrogen & oxygen, etc. That is a "fact" we can both agree on. But I'm talking about a quantum, deeper level of beliefs about the nature of reality. For example, beliefs that say that physical reality is all of reality; beliefs about how physical reality originates, and so on
Any statement about the nature of reality is a statement of beliefs about reality--and your own beliefs you see as facts.
I once had the same discussion with a guy who thought the Bible was the word of God. I kept on telling him that it's his opinion that it's the word of God. He kept saying, "No, the Bible IS the word of God." I kept saying to him that he has a certain set of beliefs pertaining to reality and God, and that these beliefs lead him to draw his conclusion that the Bible is the word of God. He just didn't get it. He kept saying, "No, you are wrong. The Bible is the word of God. It is not my belief. You don't understand."
He had a blind spot when it came to his beliefs. Seth calls these "invisible beliefs"--and they are usually thought of as "reality" itself. My friend insisted that his beliefs were "facts" and "reality" with no room for other opinions. You do the same thing with your beliefs...and you don't see it yet. From my friend's point of view, his beliefs about the Bible were verifiable; and to you, your beliefs about the scientific views concerning the nature--are verifiable.
My whole point is--what I say about reality is based on my beliefs about physical reality; and what any "skeptic" says about physical reality is also based on his/her beliefs about the nature of physical reality.
Everybody's reality, by definition, goes thru the filter of their belief systems when they explain and judge it. Its only after your scientific beliefs are in place--that you can create and repeat your scientific tests--to prove what you already believe.
When it comes to "evidence" -- your set of rules based on your belief system (that nonphysical does not exist) does not hold up in my belief system (that nonphysical reality does exist)-- and vice versa.
You can't test inner experiences like you can test how many bowling balls in takes to fill the Albert Hall. When it comes to psychic experiences, subjectivity is the key; and so-called skeptics have their own rigid views on subjectivity that render subjective experience, by definition, as nonvalid when it comes to tests about the nature of reality.
All I am saying is that you, Fred, (and all of us) have certain set beliefs about subjective experiences--and those beliefs dictate to you how you judge and look at subjective experiences. This is true for everyone. Everyone has beliefs about certain things, and those beliefs dictate the way the person sees those things and what experiences they have concerning those things. You are not devoid of beliefs--you just don't see them as beliefs--you see them as "facts."
Why not just "experiment?" Pick an area or a subject (money, love, anything). Examine your own belief system in regard to that one area--and see what connections arise or exist between your beliefs & your physical experiences in that one area.
It is almost impossible for anyone to accept things outside their belief system because their belief system dictates to them how they judge what they see. I believe that, ultimately, the "quantum" objective thing about the physical universe is that it is subjective; even tho on the classic level of reality science deals with it all appears to be objective.
I assume you think it is objective. You must judge "subjectivity" the way you do, for if you did not--your whole view of the nature of reality would fall apart. If you believed what I believed about the nature of reality--you would have to totally stand your universe on its ears and teach it to whistle Dixie. We are all thus dictated to by our beliefs.
I believe that I can understand your belief system more than you can understand mine because I also share your beliefs--but up to a point. The difference is--I build on these beliefs--or add to them--using my additional beliefs about the nature of the nonphysical reality (a reality that you don't accept as real).. Where we part company is that I think there are MORE mechanisms at work beyond the ones you stop at; altho I accept your beliefs do have a validity in their place.
Thus, your beliefs have a place in my belief system. On the other hand, my beliefs have no place in your belief system--other than to be defined as invalid, nonsense, false, nuts, crazy, escapism, and so on--and forgive me if I put words into your mouth here.
So, please do not think for one moment that I am calling you closed-minded or stubborn or any thing like that. I am trying to describe the process or the mechanism behind one's belief systems which make certain ideas impossible to accept; while other ideas are readily acceptable.
Again, Fred, I do not think nor do I wish to imply that you or others who share your beliefs are ignorant and/or people who stubbornly cling to cherished beliefs. I adhere to my beliefs as you adhere to yours. I am trying to describe what I see as the natural process of how people, all people, including myself, are dictated to and in many ways are "blinded" by our beliefs in regard to the true nature of reality.
I believe that the mind exists independent of the brain. I can't prove it to your satisfaction. The proofs that you accept do not hold up in the inner realm of subjectivity. Similarly, you can't put love under a microscope and prove its existence by looking at its cellular structure.
I believe the things I do--like consciousness creates physical reality--because it makes logical sense to me given the way I view the world and consciousness. The same is true for you--for why you believe that consciousness does not create physical reality. It makes logical sense to you.
Let me ask in reverse some repeated questions asked me by so-called skeptics: "On what is your belief based, that physical reality is all there is to reality; that the mind or consciousness exists only dependent on the brain? What evidence is there demonstrating that consciousness exists only within the physical realm? Why do you believe consciousness does NOT create physical reality? What does create it then? What actually causes superstrings to vibrate at different intensities? What happens to a dream when the person wakes up? Can you prove it beyond your beliefs about it?
You will discover that the deeper you dig, the answers are not so simple. Ultimately, when it comes down to it, in certain areas you believe the opposite of what I believe BUT FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON--and that is that these things ring true to you. It is actually a very subjective thing to accept one's beliefs about the nature of reality. And it takes a healthy trust in one's self, too. These concepts seem to be in accordance with the way you perceive the nature of reality to be; as their opposites seem to be in accordance with the way I perceive the nature of reality to be.
Remember, your whole scientific principles about experiments needing to be verifiable and retested and everything else--stem FIRST from your beliefs about the nature of reality--and your beliefs about objectivity & subjectivity.
It is only after one subjectively accepts that view of the nature of reality and the nature of objective reality and subjective reality--that the scientific principles become the best & only way to test the so-called ONLY reality which one therefore perceives to exist.
It so happens that the concepts couched within many of your comments & questions exist outside the objective realm of reality as it is perceived physically by humans.
What does it mean that beliefs create reality? The situations we find ourselves in are dictated to us by the beliefs we hold both on conscious and subconscious levels. The stronger belief is the one which is manifested. On a psychic level--we draw to us those who have agreed on a psychic, subconscious level to help in the manifestation of that particular belief. For a simple example, if you believe that love is always difficult, then you will find yourself in relationships in which that is the case--drawing to yourself those mates willing to "act out" your beliefs. These people would have their own reasons and sets of beliefs to participate in the physicalization of these relationships.
Beliefs are not simply what is on the surface of the person's conscious mind. Most of the time the exact opposite is the case. It is because of very deeply held beliefs, that what is clearly obvious to all involved in a situation--is not obvious to the one who has a countering, deeply held belief.
Another simple example: there is a really nice guy. Everybody likes him--and they should. But Joe doesn't like him because he looks like someone else who Joe hated--and now Joe believes that everyone who looks like that is not a nice guy. It doesn't matter what this guy does--Joe will only see him thru the filters of his belief--that he is not a nice guy. All that this guy does will be interpreted to coincide with that belief. The same is true about beliefs concerning the nature of reality. So, remember, everything you say about science and reality stem from the beliefs you have about the nature of reality.
Please understand that all of your questions and comments stem from your beliefs about what is knowable and how things can be known. How do you "know" how the objects of physical reality are created? How do you "know" if there was a big bang? How do you "know" what was before the big bang? How do you "know" there was a before?
You don't KNOW these things, you speculate and assume or you FEEL that they are true or right. How do you know that what is physical is all there is to the nature of reality? You speculate or assume or you FEEL you are right. It makes sense to you. The same with me. These beliefs I have about death and imagination and intuition--feel right inside--make sense to me according to my beliefs--something inside rings true.
And your beliefs feel right inside you. This is the same reason why you believe that imagination is just imagination and coincidences are simply coincidences. You don't KNOW those things--but you believe them. Something inside you rings true when you give yourself these answers. You then go out and find and interpret the "proofs" to prove your initial FEELINGS correct.
Well, I believe this is the end of my response to you. Be well, be happy, and believe in yourself....
GO TO THE PREVIOUS PAGE RETURN TO THE Q&A; MAIN PAGE RETURN TO THE HOME PAGE This Site Hosted by
