This is from Seth, I don’t know where specifically. It’s something I copied down a good while ago.
“I have told you time and time again . . . that you construct your physical universe and your private environment in line with your expectations, for they mirror perfectly the deepest areas of your own inner reality. This is perhaps the closest I can come in handing you anything that approaches a basic truth. All [of this] material follows and flows out of this primary statement. . . .
“When you find [yourself] noticing more and more the inequalities, the disasters, and the shames that come within the sphere of your perception, you add to their existence. This may confound what common sense may tell you. However, concentration reinforces the quality [that] is concentrated upon. . . .
“When you are concentrating upon destructive elements, you lose on two points. You reinforce the destructive qualities by the very act of concentrating upon them, and you rob [yourself] of the constructive qualities that you could be concentrating upon, and therefore that you could be reinforcing. You will in all cases attempt to construct as physical reality your inner conception of what reality is. Your physical environment and conditions are a mirror of your own basic conceptions of reality. If the environment changes it is because your inner conceptions have changed; and no smallest alteration is made within physical reality that has not first been made within the inner self. You make your own reality from your expectations, and this is one of the greatest truths. I can tell you no better. You must deal with the realities that you have made, or change them. There are no alternatives.”
-Seth
Hi Frank,
This looks familiar to me; it could be from “The Nature of Reality”, or “The Nature of Mass Events”. I also just read a similar session, from Book 9 of “The Early Sessions”, from mid-1969, when Rob and Jane were lamenting the state of world affairs back then.
I’m on my second go-thru of most of the Seth material, and again there are numerous occasions when the session I’ve read the previous evening addresses, exactly, a concern I have the next day! Seems to give credence to Seth’s saying that each of us “create the Seth books” for our own needs…interesting how that works! The words may appear the same, but somehow it all seems so apt…and beyond just “vague generalities” of “generic” channeled material.
Again, I have to say that the Seth material, combined w/ what you and Rita/TGU are bringing forth, provides the basis of a “working model” of reality, and Human constructs, for me. Gives me a good “launch-point” for doing my own explorations…
Craig
Thank you Craig very true.
Yes, funny about similarities and coincidences.
I signed up to receive J. Krishnamurti’s Daily Quote seven months ago, just to learn more about the many metaphysical teachings.
And last week it was about Authorities:
One Headline: “The old Mind is Bound by Authority.”
Headline two: “Authority Prevents Learning.”
Quote:
” A man who is burdened with knowledge, with instructions, who is weighted down by the things he has learned, is never free. He may be most extraordinary erudite, but his accumulation of knowledge prevents him from being free, and therefore he is incapable of learning ” – ( a paradox to me ).
And next: “Wisdom is something that has to be discovered by each one, and it is not the result of knowledge. Ask yourself as a rule what impression any Authority gives you.”
(From now on questioning every Authority, hmm, and I. who always believes in what everybody says, like a sponge) Smiling !
B & B, Inger Lise
P.S. Honestly speaking … I`m becoming very much more alert than ever before about the chance for “indoctrination/brainwash” as once were in my youth. I REALLY BELIEVED in everything people telling me ! I did NOT KNOW about the word “dishonest.” And of course “falling upon my nose” several times because of it……To be gullible is not always “the right way.”
True of a lot of us. I’m not so sure it’s so bad to be gullible as a child, as long as we eventually learn better.
You say of the second quotation that it is a paradox to you. Not to me. To me he is saying, if you construct (or adopt) a mental system, and you force every new bit of data to conform with that system, you cannot learn because you cannot be open to correction by experience. You become a prisoner of your system, and all you learning merely reinforces the thickness of the walls separating you from reality as it is. I think this is why life provides so many shocks, to give us a chance to (or force us to) shed old comfortable positions that don’t quite match reality.
….. I`m ever grateful to you Frank, thanks a lot ! When trying to understand the methaphysical psychology, and reading the english language at the same time, is it not always easy finding the deeper meaning as always.
But I see it now after you explaining what Krishnamurti have meant by it….A good point thank you indeed!
BTW: But it is rather peculiar in me never to have had any difficulties with the depth of the Edgar Cayce Readings ? From the very beginning, almost 40 years back in time, when to study the E. C. Readings almost as “knowing them” and/or, “recognizing” the old-fashioned wordings by Edgar Cayce at once ?
I am far from the same “recognition” when it comes to Krishnamurtis.
Hm, well, is it not called “an inquiring mind” or something ?
Smiles, Inger Lise.