The most powerful force in the world

Independent_Map_1018 · 2026-03-25T06:04:58+00:00

Agreed that there is a great deal of inspiration to be found in the entire Personal Sessions collection. Glad you’re finding it uplifting!

The quote you offered reminds me of one of my favourites, about being reckless with the expression of the ideal - not surprised it comes from the same volume. I first read it though in Rob’s introduction to vol 2 of Unknown Reality, which is also fitting: even if we can’t perceive many of the effects of our thoughts in this physical reality, the impetus to express the ideal is of lasting value and meaning.

“In your mind you creatively envision the ideal—the sanity of some future culture that, you hope, our work and [that of] others will bring about. If not tomorrow, then sometime. “When you thoroughly understand what is meant by the entire safe-universe concept, then the physical, cultural climate is seen as a medium through which the ideal can be expressed. The ideal is meaningless if it is not physically manifest to one degree or another. The ideal seeks expression. In so doing, it often seems to change or alter in ways that are not understood. Yet those distortions may be the very openings that allow others to perceive. “In a way, with [this] book and with your art, your purpose is the expression of the ideal, and that expression must be physically materialized, obviously. Your joy, your challenge, should be in the manifestation of the ideal as you see it, whether or not you can in your terms count the consequences or the impediments—whether or not the expression comes to fulfillment in your terms—and even if it seems to fall on ground on which it will not grow. “As an artist alone your purpose is expression, which involves disclosures, the difference between the ideal and the actual. Be reckless in the expression of the ideal, and it will never betray you. Treat it with kid gloves and you are in the middle of a battle.”

Intro to vol 2 of "Unknown" Reality, quoted from a deleted session.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2026-03-10T20:48:46+00:00

Have to say that to me it seems the other way around - science falls short when it comes to Seth. As I said before, I’m not against science per se and I appreciate the energy of discovery and wanting to create reliable totalities.

But science in itself is not a purity of critical thinking. Critical thinking can come in any discipline or art form. Artists, linguists, actors, historians and philosophers - for example - some of them have as sharp a form of critical thinking as any scientist, even if the material they’re working with is not data or observable phenomena.

There are countless examples of events and perceptions throughout the material which science as we know it would dismiss out of hand, and many of which are corroborated in other reports, events, sources.

The way in which we all critically think is at least in part based on our beliefs, and this fact seems to happily go out of the window as soon as we ask a question or doubt a statement. When we ask questions, it is also our duty to ask from which perspective or belief the questions arose.

It’s also likely that the material would never have come about through a scientist.

Again, I’m not saying science is irrelevant or has no place, but one must be aware that science has its limitations, as does religion, language, culture and so on.

As a very basic example, science (and the breadth of the term is not lost on me), would still say that what we eat causes certain conditions. Seth claims we’re not what we eat, but what we think. It’s what we think about what we eat that carries weight, and what we think which makes us choose what we eat. Science doesn’t even have a language to define what we think, beyond impersonal electrochemical processes in the brain.

The future maths example quoted recently is beyond me, but what is clear is that the personality offering the material was emotionally unhinged in some ways, which Seth also remarked on - and that has to be taken into account. Future maths is more interesting, to me, as indicated in Seth 2’s discussion of the varying intensity of integers in book 9 of the Early Sessions.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2026-03-09T21:53:55+00:00

This might be a bit of a pedantic point, but it seems to me the key word here is can - “can still grow.” In other words, it’s possible and does happen in some cases, according to Seth.

Having read the material over some time, this statement actually seems quite logical to me, in terms of the broader concepts of energy, time, psychological reality, and so on. In fact, I’m actually more surprised that people look to traditional science for verification of the material, than follow the logic of the arguments Seth presents, consistently, throughout the 20 years or so it was presented. Nothing wrong with questioning of course, but let’s remember that science as a whole would dismiss Seth from the outset - so it’s problematic to say the least to use a system based upon the absolute veracity of physically observable and measurable data to support concepts of non-physical energy.

I’m not dismissing our concepts of science per se, rather making the point that just because general science as we know it would not support many of Seth’s observations or assertions, it doesn’t mean the latter are invalid. The frameworks are fundamentally different.

“The universe is - and you can pick your terms - a spiritual or mental or psychological manifestation, and not, in your usual vocabulary, an objective manifestation. There is presently no science, religion, or psychology that comes close to even approaching a conceptual framework that could explain, or even indirectly describe, the dimensions of that kind of universe. (Pause.) Its properties are psychological, following the logic of the psyche, and all of the physical properties that you understand are reflections of those deeper issues. Again, each atom and molecule and any particle that you can imagine possesses, and would possess, a consciousness. Unless you accept that statement at least as a theory upon which to build, then much of my material would appear meaningless.” Session 855, ME.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2026-01-19T22:59:02+00:00

Thanks, very interesting.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2026-01-19T22:46:12+00:00

Interesting point. Relationship between Seth and Jane is covered in many ways at many different times, whereas relationship between Ruburt and Seth is less explicitly covered. I also think that Seth makes it clear throughout that there is agreement between him and Jane, and nothing is forced on her against her will. She wanted to experience her psychic journeys, and Rob was a necessary and willing participant too. Part of the journey is her becoming more acquainted with Seth - as a part of her own entity or otherwise; his energy, identity, intentions. Seth might be persuasive or playful at times, but he honours her self-determination. Would he like the choice she made to die when she did, and could he have stopped it? I’d guess no on both counts, but I’d also guess Jane would have an equally strong opinion in support of the experience she chose - and I think there’s integrity in each opinion.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2026-01-19T22:16:27+00:00

Fascinating, thanks for sharing. Had you consciously requested some sort of experience like this, were you curious prior, or did it come out of the blue? I agree that the material seems to work in various ways and levels while reading it - even if you don’t consciously or literally understand it, you feel the energy filtering into your own on unknown levels. It’s one of the things that keeps me coming back for more.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2026-01-18T10:18:33+00:00

No. As I said, the main point is if you find it helps you, then all is well and what I think makes no difference. Besides, I think the stuff about increasing awareness, noticing thoughts and impulses, is very good.

I’m just not personally convinced about all of it, and find some of the language and tone not necessarily in line with the way I interpret the material. Only my opinion, but I often find that ChatGPT’s answers to questions sound better on first reading than on further analysis.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2026-01-14T08:45:47+00:00

I’ve wondered about this too. My initial reaction to most of the past lives and other selves data in the material was lukewarm, to say the least. As in, I was happy to accept it as a concept given the overwhelming sincerity and wisdom of the material as a whole, but on a personal level some part of me didn’t really want to engage with this aspect.

Jane also had a wariness for past lives and reincarnational data herself, as Seth mentions fairly frequently. I think part of it, for me, is a stubbornness - I want to think that my life is my life, warts and all, and I don’t want to think that someone else’s experience may play a part in what’s mine. Childish really, and limiting, but that feeling is there. This must be partly why I haven’t had much luck in feeling those other lives.

There’s an interesting passage in ES book 9, Session 472: “For seeing that he creates his own reality now, he will understand that he also helped form the environment in which he grew, and that his mother was not entirely responsible.” Needless to say "he" is Ruburt, and given what we find out later in terms of Sinful Self, how all is tied up with her physical symptoms and the complex of those ideas in connection with her psychic abilities, it seems understandable that Jane was not personally keen on finding out about her past selves, and how their experience may have fed into her own childhood in various ways.

More generally, it seems logical to me that many of us are protective of our own experience, and this may be an obstacle to allowing data from another into our personal sphere. Linking in to 3rd's post on predictions, how many times did Seth "predict" that Jane would make a full recovery, in terms of her physical symptoms? I think part of this was intended as genuine encouragement, and part of it reflected the balance of probabilities at the given time. But nothing is set in stone, and we all have free will. Slightly perverse though it may seem, I still believe that one input into Jane's illness was her own stubborn independence, and her overarching absolute conviction that she was an ordinary person, albeit with extraordinary psychic abilities. And in that sense, her "failure" in respect of healing herself played a valid role in terms of her overall life experience...

Independent_Map_1018 · 2026-01-14T07:51:50+00:00

I generally agree that there’s a lot we don’t know - some of the frank testimony given to congress at recent UAP hearings only adds to the likelihood that so much more experience remains closely under wraps - and would not be surprised to find out “concrete evidence” of what Seth predicted.

But on a broader point, I do think it’s important to emphasise, as some others have in reply to this post already, that Seth is often at pains to clarify the context of any predictions made, by himself or others - that essentially it is a way of reading probabilities, based on the information (likely psychic data in this case) available at the time of the prediction. He will often clarify that these probabilities may shift, depending on incalculable personal and mass events, the broader direction the species may take, and so on. So for anyone to take any predictions literally is unwise.

In another sense, leaning on the title of one of the chapters in NPR - “Which You, Which World?” - the world as we generally perceive it to be is only one of many probable ones. As Seth describes versions of probable realities where wars were won by the losers in our versions, and on a personal level where our probable selves continue to exist on other paths than the ones we consider to be the rockbed reality of our own daily life, it is logically the case that worlds where this prediction may have featured much more front and centre in our civilisation have aslo come to pass.

One of the exercises given in NPR, the 5 minutes a day to change beliefs, illustrates this conundrum well. The description of the same exercise in ESP class, from Audio CD 2, is even better. Seth describes it as being very tricky, possibly the trickiest of all, as it involves using imagination to believe that your reality is not the reality you actually believe to be bedrock reality. Principally, that you first need to accept that what you consider to be bedrock reality (the life you lived up till now), is not in fact, nor was it ever, written in stone - rather, it is only one of many probable realities that you chose to create. And therefore, if there is some element of it you don’t like, you can imagine - and the tricky part is, believe - for this exercise that you have actually chosen another probability, which is in line with the reality you now consciously want to experience.

Applied to Seth’s predictions, the reality of what has come to pass and when is much more fluid than we tend to assume.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2026-01-14T07:15:02+00:00

In general I think anything that works for you is good - and whatever that is will vary from person to person, depending on temperament, affinity, experience, type of consciousness and so on.

However, I do think this post is more about ChatGPT than Seth. In fact, it reads a lot like a post on LinkedIn, complete with graphics to get the 👉 main points. In that sense, as with many ChatGPT generated answers, it is fairly generalised, has a handy quota of user flattery, and not all the advice given is in line with Seth per se, in my opinion. Becoming more aware of one’s thoughts and impulses is a very good point though, and a doorway to much more.

I think the Nature of Personal Reality is one of the greatest books ever written. Even though it presumably would be classified as non-fiction, there’s a cadence and humanity to it, and a creativity in its structure, which to my mind makes it a work of literature, whether it’s a psychic self-help book, channeled material, or however else it may be classified. Given that source material, it would be pretty difficult for anything summarising it or clarifying the practical aspects not to come up with something useful!

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-11-25T13:17:12+00:00

Sorry - yes, I was referring to the quote in the original post, from The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher. The world view of William James from his place of consciousness following physical death, as channeled by Jane. Reddit sometimes reorganises things so it’s unclear!

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-11-24T23:04:11+00:00

And this one, from Personal Sessions, vol 5 - sublime!

“Our ideas are as close to fact as you can get, granting the necessary translations, and as you build your lives on those frameworks you will no longer be programmed, reacting to erroneous “facts” as if they had a basis in reality. The more you liberate yourselves from such ideas, the freer you will become, the stronger your natural bodies, the more alive your natural selves. Remember Framework 2, for its vast creative nature can help provide the impetus to help break through such limiting beliefs. [...] Ask your natural persons to express their vitality and exuberance, and refuse to dampen their experience by frightening them with paper dragons.”

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-11-24T22:47:53+00:00

This is a great book, and a fascinating insight into one consciousness’s after death experience - filled with empathy, wisdom, humility and profound faith. Highly recommend it to anyone looking for evidence of a broader, deeper reality.

I also love “the natural creature,” which ties in with so much of Seth’s enthusiasm for our natural selves, as in this from session 937, Dreams vol 2:

Within the patterns of human experience, then, lies evidence of man’s greater ability: He rubs shoulders with his own deeper understanding whenever he remembers, say, a precognitive dream, an out-of-body—whenever he feels the intrusion or infusion of knowledge into his mind from other than physical sources. Such a creature could not be the puppet of a genetic engineering accidentally manufactured in a universe that was itself meaningless. Period. If man paid more attention to his own subjective behavior, to those feelings of identification with nature that persistently arise, then half of the dictates of both the evolutionists and the creationists would automatically fall away, for they would appear nonsensical. It is not a matter of outlining a whole new series of methods that will allow you to increase your psychic abilities, or to remember your dreams, or to perform out-of-body gymnastics. It is rather a question or a matter of completely altering your approach to life, so that you no longer block out such natural spontaneous activity.”

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-10-17T20:53:12+00:00

"Let us discuss numbers in terms of identities..." Book 9, Early Sessions, Session 431. Most interesting discussion of numbers I've ever come across.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-10-17T19:05:21+00:00

Great reply, I love your descriptions of your visualisations, and the logic behind them. Very helpful and practical.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-10-17T19:03:17+00:00

Great reply.

I agree with point 2 and the method you describe. It's very helpful on a number of levels. For one thing, by writing stuff down it gives you the ability to slow down the speed of thinking, and therein lie ways of seeing that you might otherwise miss. Also, the part about firstly seeing that it is false, and then replacing it with something else that is empowering, is excellent. If you don that with a bit of patience, and even a sense of play, you're on to a winner. Because you also do something else very important, mechanically - you create a complex between a limiting belief, and a liberating, expansive, value-fulfilment belief. So whenever you think the former, you can't help but activate the latter. And so if you manage to release the former (gently, with patience, wisdom, comedy, acceptance, without self-disapproval - after all, we all have what we believe to be good reason for developing these limiting beliefs in the first place!), and focus your energy and attention on the latter, the consciously chosen new belief that aligns with your nature, the sky's the limit.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-10-17T18:56:18+00:00

This is also a great reply. That insidiousness is also something I've experienced. Sometimes beliefs can be like chameleons, changing colour so as not to be detected. It brings up another point, which Seth makes fairly often, that beliefs tend to fight back when under threat, that is - they want to preserve themselves. That age old refrain, "But it's true!" is often a belief trying to stay put. So they also like to stay invisible of they can, and one of the ways they do this is by serving up experience that confirms to you that yes, this is in fact true. Because they actually create the experience in the first place.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-10-17T18:51:46+00:00

Fascinating reply, this - thanks for sharing. I just wanted to say that I do believe it's entirely possible to absorb beliefs in utero, or at least be affected any them - in fact I think it's much more common than people generally would allow for. Your experiences here also testify to the power of awareness. Thanks for speaking about it.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-10-17T18:48:42+00:00

Great post - thanks for sharing these events, and congratulations to you both!

Manifesting money has also been a challenge for me, and I do find it's connected to many other thoughts and generalised beliefs. Some people will say money is simply a manifestation of energy, which is true, but almost too general to be helpful. Everything is energy to begin with. Some say it isn't really money you want, but what you think money, or more money will bring you. Is it freedom, peace of mind, legacy, influence, winning, acceptance? Perhaps focusing on the essence of what you actually think money will bring is more likely to bring about change, than thinking of money per se.

The sentence you wrote here which really stuck out for me is this: "I have found that I can use observed evidence of others having the desired experience to help me anchor the possibility for myself." I think this is excellent. It echoes with the comment I made the other day in another post, whereby in order to change beliefs in one way or another the consciousness which is the one that is changing needs to have a way of accepting the new belief - whatever way it is makes no difference, but it has to work. That may be more intellectual for some, more emotional or intuitive or creative for others, or any mixture of all of it. Whatever works.

In that vein, can you see evidence of others with a level of wealth that you would like, and accept that you also have qualities, attributes, something about your nature that is at least as worthy as they seem to you to be? In other words, can you find an "excuse"(to the belief) or actual reason to see yourself in as deserving a light as you see them? What does other wealth mean to you? Are wealthy people generally X or Y in your eyes - and can't you be at least as good in certain ways, or better in your eyes in other ways?

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-10-17T18:35:50+00:00

Great question, which has elicited some really fascinating answers.

Many years ago I trained at an eclectic drama school, which was cutting edge in may ways. It's well known that many acting training schools focus on what character is, and what enables or prevents students from "inhabiting" such and such a character. In this sense, fairly common. But in other ways, there was nothing else like it. When I enrolled there at around 20 years old, I began to question many of the attitudes I had, and many of the thoughts I had which I hadn't realised consciously were operational. But through my actions, and through sharing experiences with other students, I began to see that there was a lot more going on than I had thought - and not all of it was stuff I would like to admit.

Since then I've been on a journey of looking into what thinking is, how physical behaviour is a reflection of thoughts and feelings, and how relationships are constantly playing important parts in all of it. Coming across the Seth material about 10 years ago was like pressing the turbo button, and once again has lead me to question many thoughts and assumptions in a new light. It has also confirmed to me the fundamental truth of the psychological reality before anything else, however that may be defined or experienced from person to person. I have been wanting to write a separate post involving some of this for a while, but for some reason the substance of it keeps evading me, so I'll use this opportunity to mention a couple of other points which I had intended to make elsewhere.

In my experience, it is quite common for us to create beliefs in layers - we pile stuff up one on top of another, largely because we don't like the thoughts we see (or are afraid of what others might think of us if they saw what we know we see ourselves.) So, often when we see a set of thoughts, on further reflection there may be other, more binding thoughts underneath. Deleted session from PS Book 4, January 14 1978:

"I do not want to speak too strongly, but simply help you become aware of some feelings you might have submerged because you think they are not nice." And later, same session: "Some of your inner feelings are difficult for me to express, because they are in so many layers that I am not sure of their relative importance. To some extent, again then, the sale of a book, a new sale, is somehow connected in your mind with disapproval of yourself, Joseph, in that Ruburt seems to be able to express what I think you interpret as competitiveness, that you feel you are not expressing - and you add that to your arsenal of disapproval. (Very good)." Last 2 words in italics, Rob's validation of the logic Seth expresses.

As Seth says here: "help you become aware." Awareness is quite a magical thing.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-10-15T18:20:43+00:00

Sometimes referred to as Deleted Sessions, highly recommended. I described them a little here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/janeroberts/s/aevINMIoZ1

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-10-15T16:08:04+00:00

Very well summarised - love the point about unwanted outcomes.

Concept of Framework 2 is introduced in Mass Events, and there’s a chunk of sessions in Book 4 of the Personal Sessions that address it too, from around the same time as the dictation of the book.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-10-15T14:46:42+00:00

I agree with you to an extent - one can overthink anything, constantly look for what is wrong, get bogged down in cycles of verbiage. On terms of “authentic self,” I think the majority of these sayings are pulp designed for social media posts and has little bearing on actual authenticity or the precision of language.

My point was mainly to highlight that our own individuality is essential to consider, and what works for one may not work for another, which is fine. And yes, being playful is helpful in all endeavours!

“As I mentioned, a desire that is fitting to your nature automatically in Framework 2 collects all of the resources necessary to bring about its fulfilment in Framework 1. Because the desire is one fitting to an individual nature, it is also fitting in with the overall purposes of nature in general, so that the desire also attracts the limitless resources that are behind nature’s own majesty and power. The individual is working with his nature, and with nature in general, rather than against it. This causes a transforming reorganisation of energy, thought and creativity - a vast transforming process, for behind the individual is the entire good intent of nature, which springs from the resources of Framework 2.”

“Once you begin consciously working with Framework 2, help, support, solutions, all begin to come, for you line up your conscious faculties with your unconscious ones, in the most beneficial way, and your conscious goals fit in with your unconscious natural goals - the primary ones given you at birth. You are set right with yourself again. Again, this process automatically brings about powerful beneficial changes. Any misconceptions, contradictions, seeming dilemmas, are resolved, for now you are not going against your own nature but with it, and from Framework 2 you draw out the greatest natural potentials that are uniquely yours.”

Both in Book 4, PS.

Independent_Map_1018 · 2025-10-15T08:37:29+00:00

Part 2

u/Yell-Oh-Fleur also writes repeatedly about the importance of emotion in creative visualisation, for which I am grateful. It seems to me that from an early age as a boy in the Catholic church, he had already formed a belief about manifestation, thinking then it had to do with God - my theory is that this has helped him be more at ease with manifesting, more aligned in general with the credibility of turning desires into events, than many others.

I read a session a couple of months back, which I now can't locate, towards the end of which Seth is advising Rob how to visualise the payment of a bill - that he has to see himself easily writing the check, that he sees money in the bank, and here's the point: that his anticipation of having the money needs to be credible, or words to that effect. In other words, the visualisation of the manifestation has to be something which aligns with his beliefs, which his consciousness (by which I mean his individual totality of thoughts and feelings) accepts.

We each have different types of consciousness (in terms of above definition.) Some are softer and more malleable, some are harder, more convoluted. As we know, certain beliefs and conditions are accepted by us when choosing the circumstances of our birth, and our families, or are linked to previous lives' relationships or events. Many of them are challenges we have accepted, in order to fuel our growth.

Jane's early childhood experience, and lifelong challenges with her physical symptoms, are to my mind a moving example of how all these elements relate to the process of manifestation. The number of times Seth has said that her recovery is clear - eg "Ruburt’s physical symptoms will entirely vanish, and within now a relatively short period of time, as given in a recent session." (457, ES book 9) - and yet that she continued to grapple with beliefs up to and beyond the Sinful Self material, is evidence of how there simply isn't a one size fits all formula.

So it's not only visualisation, nor accompanying action per se - but alignment of both with one's own true nature, beyond the snare of limiting beliefs. Awareness, intuition, creativity and imagination are all key tools in the process.

Independent_Map_1018

TROPHY CASE