The Seth Material

© Ian Lawton 2005

[I would like to gratefully acknowledge the part my partner Liz Swanson played in forming some of the major arguments and conclusions in this paper, and also thank John Ratcliff for persuading me to revisit the Seth material.]

Background

Not long after I published the first edition of The Book of the Soul I received some correspondence from someone who had read my previous book, Genesis Unveiled. His main thrust was to emphasize the extent to which the spiritual worldview I had elaborated in chapter two of that earlier work corresponded with that of Seth, a ‘nonphysical entity’ who channeled his thoughts and teachings through medium Jane Roberts from 1963 up to her death in 1984.

I had come across references to this material before, but had not actually read any of Roberts’ books. The only channelled sources that I discuss in any detail in The Book of the Soul are those of Edgar Cayce in chapter 7, because of the extent to which they incorporate a discussion of karma, but I have already made it clear that I do not normally have great faith in such material. Nevertheless, upon receiving this information I obtained a copy of Seth Speaks, which was apparently channeled directly by Seth in complete book form, and so ostensibly represents his ‘master work’. It was first published in 1972, and has been through numerous reprints ever since.

This turned out to be an eloquent and erudite philosophical and spiritual treatise, which uses a reasonably easy and fluent style to discuss issues of sometimes extreme complexity. At first reading I found it highly persuasive – indeed, because it is far better than most channelled material it borders on the insidious in its tendency to make the reader assume that everything therein must be ‘true’, and they must significantly alter their worldview.

However, although there are a number of areas in which Seth agrees with the concepts put forward in The Book of the Soul, there are also significant areas in which the two are in considerable disagreement if one follows the arguments through to their ultimate conclusions. The major strands of his worldview are threefold: first, that because ‘physical’ reality is nothing more than a projection of our consciousness – which is effectively his word for 'soul' – we create it in its entirety, and can therefore manipulate it at will by using our thoughts and dreams; second, that our consciousness simultaneously exists in multiple ‘realities’, of which the apparently physical is only one; and third, that time is circular as well as linear, so that our past, current and future lives are being conducted simultaneously. These ideas were not exactly new even when Seth came up with them. Nevertheless, the way in which he strings them together is sufficiently coherent and persuasive, at least superficially, that I feel they deserve serious consideration to see to what extent I might have to revisit, modify or expand the worldview presented in The Book of the Soul.

I might add at this point that I make no particular comment about the actual source of this material. As we will see, there are some factors that might cast a degree of doubt on its validity whether its source is ethereal or not, but even so it is sufficiently interesting to deserve examination – with two riders: first, that any material of this nature need not be taken as ‘gospel truth’ in its entirety, and should remain open to constructive analysis; and second, that its provenance cannot be objectively regarded as of the same quality as the interlife material collated in The Book of the Soul, merely because the latter provides us with an essentially consistent message from so many independent sources.

I will begin with the key consistencies between Seth's material and my own, which primarily revolve around the interlife experience. But this immediately raises an important question. I had not appreciated the popularity and influence it had enjoyed before most of the pioneering interlife regression research I reference in The Book of the Soul was conducted. To that extent it could well be argued that it might have exerted a significant influence on the hypnotherapists who conducted this research. I can only say that not only is his overall worldview very different from that suggested by their research, but also that to the extent he talks about karmic concepts, for example, his ideas are very much in tune with my own but somewhat at odds with those of most of these pioneers. In addition, none of them explicitly mentions Seth's material, although this is perhaps not surprising given that as professional psychiatrists or psychologists they were arguably taking enough of a risk just talking about reincarnation, without referencing channelled material as well. But the very scepticism towards anything 'paranormal' that nearly all of them displayed at the outset suggests that they would have been unlikely to have examined it in any detail at least until their own research had already progressed considerably. That is not to say that some of his material – concerning the interlife in particular – might not have influenced some of their subjects, but the suggestion that this would be an overriding factor in the consistent testimony from thousands of people from all walks of life seems somewhat remote.

Before we start, I might note that Seth does have a tendency to swap backwards and forwards between topics, which leads to a degree of repetition that can be somewhat annoying – but I guess that any of us would do the same if we had to dictate a manuscript from scratch with no editing, and we should not necessarily expect a more advanced ethereal entity to have superior skills in this regard. Nevertheless, this does mean that properly referencing his stance on particular issues is a complex affair, albeit that I have done my best to do so at the end of this paper in a style similar to the one I adopt in The Book of the Soul.

The Interlife Experience

Seth does confirm many elements of the interlife experience that I discuss in The Book of the Soul. If we commence with the transition to the interlife that I discuss in chapter 5, he confirms that a soul who is particularly addicted to physical life, or has a strong sense of unfinished business, or has strong beliefs that there is no afterlife, may hang around in the intermediate plane for a considerable time, albeit that spirit guides are on hand to assist them in realizing the true nature of their situation. But, in the normal course of events, a soul may well be met by friends, relatives and guides from this and other lives to help them make the transition – although, intriguingly, he makes no mention of the 'tunnel and light' normally mentioned by near-death experience and interlife subjects. He confirms that interactions with these other souls take place telepathically, and there can be no hypocrisy or hiding from underlying truths – although he does emphasize that 'you will not be automatically wise if you were not so before'.

Seth further confirms that some disoriented souls may have a rest period, or require a degree of rehabilitation in what they may perceive to be 'hospitals and rest homes'. But above all he emphasizes, as do all of our pioneers, that souls create their own reality in the light realms. On the one hand this means that they project their light personality in whatever form related to earthly lives they feel is most appropriate for any given situation, and on the other that to a large extent they perceive what they expect to perceive based on the conscious expectations they have built up in the physical plane. So he again confirms that strong Christianized beliefs in heaven and hell will be realized by those who have consciously adhered to them, but such souls will sooner or later recognize – often with the help of guides – that these constructs have no underlying or long-lasting validity. He also confirms that souls are at different stages of advancement, and that more advanced souls will require far less initial orientation – although like our pioneers he is at pains to point out that our level of advancement cannot be readily determined from our earthly circumstances or abilities.

The two major elements of the interlife experience on which I concentrate in The Book of the Soul are past-life reviews and next-life plans, and Seth provides basic corroboration for both ideas. He emphasizes that the past-life review is the only more or less compulsory element, and describes it in the following non-judgmental terms:

You examine the fabric of the existence you have left, and you learn to understand how your experiences were the result of your own thoughts and emotions and how these affected others.

He also confirms that during or after this process the soul becomes fully aware of the broad spectrum of its past lives, and that souls then have the option to further investigate and replay their most recent past life as a learning experience:

The earth years will be experienced again, but not necessarily in continuity. The events may be used in any way the individual chooses; altered, played back the way they happened for contrast...

As for other activities in the interlife, Seth confirms that more advanced souls become involved with training for a variety of vocations such as teaching and healing – albeit that he seems to suggest they will not actively train for them until after they have completed their earthly reincarnation cycle, which seems somewhat simplistic when compared with our pioneers' reports that such training is an evolving and ongoing activity as a still-reincarnating soul is advancing. Of particular interest is his confirmation that some souls may choose to reincarnate on earth to help their fellow man even though they have completed their reincarnational cycle, and also his hint that some souls train as 'creators of forms', which bears some resemblance to at least one of our pioneers' ideas about intelligent design-type assistance to the evolutionary process. He also corroborates the idea of souls having the option to take brief sabbaticals in other nonreincarnational, nonphysical realms, in order to broaden their experience.

If we now turn to chapter 6 of The Book of the Soul in which I cover next-life planning, Seth confirms that we deliberately undergo a 'time of choosing' in which we decide on the major characteristics of our next life, including our parents and environment, and that we 'may see flashes of the future existence'. He does not concentrate unduly on the idea of soul groups as do some of our pioneers, but the basic idea of planning our incarnations with other souls who we may well have been associated with in other lives is there. He also emphasizes that 'all counsel' is available at this time from 'guides and teachers', but specifically confirms that some souls are impatient to return and do not avail themselves of the advice on hand, which tends to be 'unfortunate' but even then leads to lessons learned. He expands on this point as follows:

Whether or not you accept inferior motives in yourself or learn from them is still up to you. The opportunities for growth and development are very rich, however, and the learning methods at your disposal very effective.

This and other passages seem to indicate that there is sufficient free will that souls do follow their own course, and can eschew all interlife help and advice perhaps over many incarnations if they so choose. It therefore provides some support for my assertion in chapter 7 of The Book of the Soul that there are different stages of soul evolution, and that those in what I refer to as the 'repetitive stage' have a less meaningful interlife experience than those who have moved on to the 'progressive stage'.

Now, although Seth does not mention the word karma per se and nor – in common with most of our pioneers – does he explicitly differentiate between my concepts of the repetitive and progressive karmic stages, he does confirm a central plank of progressive behaviour when he asserts that adverse circumstances may well be chosen as experience-balancing and learning opportunities:

If in one life, for example, you hated women, you may very well be a woman in the next life. Only in this way, you see, would you be able to relate to the experience of womanhood, and then as a woman face those attitudes that you yourself had against women in the past. If you had no sympathy for the sick, you may then be born with a serious disease, again now self-chosen, and find yourself encountering those attitudes that once were your own. Such an existence would usually also include other issues, however. No existence is chosen for one reason only, but would also serve many other psychological experiences. A chronically ill existence, for example, might also be a measure of discipline, enabling you to use deeper abilities that you ignored in a life of good health. The perfectly happy life, for example, on the surface may appear splendid, but it may also be basically shallow and do little to develop the personality. The truly happy existence, however, is a deeply satisfying one that would include spontaneous wisdom and spiritual joy. I am not saying, in other words, that suffering necessarily leads to spiritual fulfillment, nor that all illness is accepted or chosen for such a purpose, for this is not the case. Illness is often the result of ignorance and lazy mental habits. Such a discipline may be adopted however by certain personalities who must take strong measures with themselves because of other characteristics.

I was also pleasantly surprised to find that he entirely corroborates my major proposition, which is again where I differ from most of our pioneers, that karma never involves 'action and reaction' or 'paying off debts' from past lives – even, in my terms, during the repetitive stage:

I have also discussed reincarnation in terms of environment because many schools of thought over-emphasize the effects of reincarnational existences, so that often they explain present-life circumstances as a result of rigid and uncompromising patterns determined in a 'past' life. You will feel relatively incompetent to handle present physical reality, to alter your environment, to affect and change your world, if you feel that you are at the mercy of conditions over which you have no control. The reasons given for such subjugations matter little in the long run, for the reasons change with the times and with your culture. You are not under a sentence placed upon you for original sin, by any childhood events, or by past-life experience. You wrote the script. Like a true absent-minded professor, the conscious self forgets all this, however, so when tragedy appears in the script, difficulty or challenges, the conscious self looks for someone or something to blame.

Nevertheless, he does confirm my major contention in respect of repetitive karma of the overriding importance of learning to assimilate strong adverse reactions or unresolved emotions so as not to carry them with you into the interlife, or at least your next life:

If you release yourself from hatred, then you automatically release yourself from such relationships in the future – or any experiences that are based upon hatred.... You may have brought negative influences into your life for a given reason, but the reason always has to do with understanding, and understanding removes those influences.

This idea is further echoed in Seth's attitude towards ghosts. Many of our pioneers suggest that these are souls who remain to some extent trapped in the physical plane, or more accurately the intermediate plane, and do not progress into the interlife perhaps for a lengthy period – precisely because they have unfinished business or strong unresolved emotions relating to someone or something still in the physical plane. To some extent Seth concurs with this, but he also describes how their repetitive behaviour has all the hallmarks of what we would now term an 'obsessive compulsive' disorder, and argues that this is only a fragment of their soul or consciousness, and not its entirety. My own best guess concerning this apparent discrepancy would be that both positions are correct. On the one hand, whole souls can become trapped – although not permanently – but to the extent they are discernable to those still in the physical realm they would exhibit a greater variety of behaviour than mere obsessive repetition; poltergeist-style activity might be placed in this category. On the other, where limited repetitive activity is observed always in the same location and format – such as the 'grey lady' syndrome – I would argue that this merely represents a psychic imprint that the soul involved has left behind; this would derive from similar causes but, contrary to Seth's suggestion, in my view this fragment would not be working out unresolved emotions and would never be reunited with said soul in any meaningful sense.

In any case, although I have not repeated the full scope of my repetitive-progressive karma analysis here, there is no doubt that there are strong parallels between Seth's view and my own. What his material lacks, with respect to him, is the consistent framework that I provide to analyse these contrasting elements of karmic dynamics, and the context of the modern regression case studies on which my framework is based.

Finally, Seth confirms a variety of other suggestions in The Book of the Soul. It perhaps goes without saying given the overall tenor of his views, but he describes 'God', or in his words 'All That Is', not as some sort of human-like 'supreme being', but instead as integral to and existing within every entity or 'form' throughout all the various realities, dimensions or planes of existence. Allied to this he confirms the thinking in some scientific quarters that the energy of all quanta has a consciousness of sorts, by alluding to the consciousness of even inanimate objects. And he argues that consciousness always precedes and therefore creates physical and indeed nonphysical forms, as opposed to the converse argument of materialists and evolutionists.

More specifically, he confirms the idea in chapter 7 that human souls do not devolve or transmigrate backwards into animal form – although conversely he suggests that animal souls can pool their consciousness to change species, and this is somewhat at variance with the view of many of our pioneers that animals tend to have more of a group consciousness that can sometimes become sufficiently individualized to progress into human form; the idea in chapter 6 that the soul can enter the foetus at any time between conception and birth, that it is not a 'one-off' but a gradual merging process, that the soul can vacate the body for some years even after birth, and that identification with the light realms remains strong in these early years but gradually dwindles; the idea in chapter 10 that death too is a process not an event, and that the soul can if it chooses leave the physical body before physical death per se occurs; and also, from that same chapter, the idea that the various aspects of the light realms are not 'divided up' in any quasi-physical sense, but that instead there exist 'psychological barriers' to some experiences or activities based on the individual soul's level of advancement, awareness and desire to learn.

Having reviewed the main points of agreement between Seth's analysis and my own, let us now turn to some of the areas in which we start to diverge. I will examine the three main strands of his worldview in turn.

Creating Our Own Reality

Seth is adamant that we create our own reality from moment to moment. This is true just as much in the supposedly physical realm as it is in the light, one major reason being that the physical world is only an illusion that we ourselves create. This idea underlies most esoteric philosophy. It is also supported by modern theoretical physics, to the extent that we now know that at the subatomic level there are no 'fundamental building blocks' of physical matter, and instead only packets of energy or quanta that change their vibrational state – as I discuss in chapter 1.

Now, this idea that we are entirely responsible for the reality that we create – both individually and, in a complex interplay with other people, collectively – is very much fundamental to the worldview I put forward in The Book of the Soul. For example, in the whole notion that we plan the major possibilities of each incarnation in advance. However, there is a major difference between Seth's view and my own, even though it is not at first obvious. And it derives from the extent to which, although he acknowledges this idea of life planning in one particular chapter as we saw above, he does not raise it again in all the other chapters in which he discusses the way we create our own reality. And this causes a problem.

Seth suggests that to create our own reality we only have to visualize a particular outcome or event. Although he promises much in the way of practical advice about how to achieve this degree of control over our lives throughout the book, when it comes down to it the advice is simple. He suggests that meditation can be important. But he also tells us that we should visualize desired outcomes just before going to sleep, because this helps to reinforce them in our dreams, which are a prime source of contact with other nonphysical realms and have a major impact on the reality we create in the supposedly physical realm:

[In the dream state] you process daily experience, project it into what you think of as the future, choose from an infinity of probable events those you will make physical, and begin the mental and psychic processes that will bring them into the world of substance.

He also, not surprisingly, compares the dream state to the interlife:

The best way to become acquainted with the after-death reality ahead of time, so to speak, is to explore and understand the nature of your own dreaming self.... In the dream state you learn, among other things, how to construct your own physical reality day by day, just as after death you learn how to construct your next physical lifetime.

Now, none of this is contradictory to the advice in The Book of the Soul, albeit that I do not place quite the same emphasis on the power of the dream state – which is arguably an error on my own part. Indeed, it is also pretty consistent with any approach to life based on 'positive thinking'. But Seth also repeatedly stresses that it is the intensity of our thoughts and emotions that determine the extent to which they affect the reality we are experiencing, although he also suggests that, rather than concentrating hard on a desired outcome, the trick is to imagine it as if it were really happening – rather in the way that an innocent child conjures up dream worlds outside of physical reality. In other words, treat it very much like play. This visualization technique is, again, commonly recommended by 'life coaches' and others.

But the problem as I see it is this. Unless I am very much misinterpreting Seth's views, he would argue that we can create any reality we like at any time. He would certainly argue that we do this with our subconscious as much as our conscious minds, but nevertheless he seems to suggest that any outcome to which we devote intense conscious thought ought to be within our grasp – and I mean any outcome. In other words, there is no discussion of how such an outcome might relate to our life plans. It can be anything that we want, at any time.

To trivialize this somewhat, some of his supporters would suggest that you can prove this by imagining, before you take a car journey through a town, that all the lights will be on green. I have not tried the exercise in full myself, but I am aware of the power of directed thought or assumption in this type of relatively trivial situation. But what, we might ask, would happen if two equally adept devotees of Seth's approach were to try this exercise at the same time, but coming from conflicting directions? Now, his supporters might revert to some sort of discussion about multiple realities, but I can only emphasize that, as we will see in the next section, Seth himself does accept that there is a 'unique' physical reality of sorts that we are all involved in creating as a form of 'mass hallucination'. It is on this that the major part of our consciousness of which we are normally aware is primarily focused – as a collective and not just an individual experience. On that basis I would maintain that only one of the two people involved in the traffic light exercise could obtain the outcome they desire, if at all, and the other would be thwarted. As far as I can tell Seth would have no proper explanation for this.

To take the discussion onto a less trivial plane, I can speak from personal experience – as, I am sure, could many of you. I have been aware of the power of directed thought and intention for a long time, and have tried to put it into practice on many occasions. When it comes to really important matters relating to my personal or work life, I have on occasion directed my thoughts and imagination to a desired outcome over prolonged periods of time and using all the methods at my disposal – including pre-sleep visualization, meditation, conscious mantra chanting and so on. And, guess what? Sometimes I have eventually achieved at least a part of the outcome I desired – although rarely straightaway, and often only after months or even years of concerted effort. But, by the same token, just as many times I have been thwarted. Sometimes the outcome I previously desired has become obsolete and is no longer of concern, but on other issues the outcome I so fervently desire has not happened yet, although it may still, possibly in some unexpected way that I have not as yet envisaged.

What would Seth have to say about this? Not very much, as far as I can ascertain, although in saying this I do hope I am not doing him a grave disservice. His supporters might argue that I am just not very good at this sort of thing yet, or even – although it is not a possibility that Seth himself seems to allow for – that some of my desires might have been thwarted by the conflicting desires of others on a more collective level. This latter is certainly an explanation for which I have some sympathy, albeit that it again implies some sort of pecking order in that someone else must be assumed to be more in tune with 'creating reality' than I am. But in truth I believe there is far more to it than this.

Under my worldview, we cannot create all the outcomes we consciously desire at will because of karma, and as we have seen this is a word that Seth does not use. So on the one hand, and quite simply, one of the specific lessons that any of us might have set ourselves to learn in this life, during the planning stage, is to cope with disappointment. On the other, we might consciously desire something that is completely at odds with the life plan we gave ourselves. Now, that plan is not predestined, and we do have the power and choice to change it as we go along in incarnate life. But I discuss in The Book of the Soul how our own higher selves, or spirit guides, or whatever, might sometimes provide little prompts to help us to take a particular course of action that would help us to follow some element of our life plan. By the same token, why should they not sometimes intervene a little to prevent us from doing something that we might think is really important at that time on a conscious level, but which they can see from a higher perspective is less than ideal? I suspect that they would not do this ad infinitum, because that really would remove an element of personal choice, which is sacrosanct to my worldview. But I am pretty sure that they might attempt to subtly influence events so that, at least for a period of time, they did their best to divert any of us from our currently desired but ultimately less than ideal path, especially if it concerned something of importance not just to ourselves but also on a more collective level. By the same token, again on a far simpler level, the fact that our own desired but unplanned outcome might conflict with a planned outcome of someone else might be more than enough to thwart it under a karmic worldview.

Therefore, for all that Seth's and my worldviews might superficially share many characteristics, concerning assuming responsibility for our lives and attempting to actively direct them, the underlying reasoning and analysis is fundamentally different. So are the conclusions we would draw about how to live our lives, because under my worldview probably the greatest test is to work out why the outcomes we sometimes so fervently desire do not seem to come to fruition. The lessons we learn from this, whether they involve having faith and patience that we are following the life plan we have set ourselves and that the outcome will emerge in the end, or instead analyzing the karmic dynamics behind why a desired outcome should have remained unfulfilled – and often only understanding and fully appreciating these dynamics after a considerable interval – are to me one of the most important elements of karmic progression.

One final observation occurs to me. An unspoken implication of Seth's worldview would surely be that we can get anything we want by visualization alone; and, even if the desired result is not instantaneous, it will still be realized pretty soon afterwards. Where in this worldview is the scope for the everyday and practical effort of striving to achieve an objective that is important to us – whether that be to develop a sporting skill, or a business, or a relationship, or a happy and successful family – over prolonged periods of time by sheer graft and hard work, and resilience against sometimes huge obstacles? I would suggest that this is one of the most rewarding and enriching of experiences on earth, and that it is just as crucial to the outcome as psycho-spiritual visualization.

Multiple Realities

I have already indicated that Seth argues that the supposedly physical realm is not physical as such at all, and I have no problem with that. But his corollary is that there are many 'realities', or nonphysical realms or dimensions, and that our consciousness divides itself up to experience all of these realities simultaneously. On that basis there are a number of elements of our consciousness, of which what we think of as 'me' while in the physical realm is just one, while other elements are concentrated in other realities. In fact he emphasizes that our consciousness does not really divide as such, because each apparent element is actually a slice of a holographic whole, and therefore not really a separate fragment at all. Again, at least as far as the holographic concept is concerned, this is not something with which I have a conceptual problem.

Nevertheless, this is a complex area in which we must tread carefully if we are to consider it properly. On the one hand, Seth concedes that there are light realms proper, that is, the realms in which we operate between incarnations. To that extent, some of our pioneering hypnotherapists assert that we leave a portion of our soul energy behind in the light realms when we incarnate, and that this energy can carry on operating within those realms. Indeed, some people might be comfortable with describing this as the 'higher self' that we sometimes appeal to for help and assistance. This idea is clearly consistent with Seth's arguments.

On the other hand, he also suggests that some entities or souls prefer to obtain their experience in what he refers to as 'probable realities', which are quite different from the reincarnational existence that all of us on earth have chosen. He seems to suggest that this is an option that any soul can take, either as a complete alternative to reincarnational existence, or as a next stage of experience once our reincarnational cycle has been fully played out. This again is not necessarily in conflict with the concepts in The Book of the Soul, even if none of our pioneers' subjects explicitly discuss such possibilities.

The real complexities arise when we find that these probable realities have a great deal of relevance to incarnate life as well – and it is only here that Seth's concept of the 'multi-dimensional personality' really comes to the fore in our system of understanding. He is effectively espousing a version of what is often referred to as the 'many worlds hypothesis', and his explanation of it runs as follows. Whenever we face a decision in incarnate life, we deliberate and then take one particular course of action. Especially if we invest any great intensity of focus on one or more of the alternative courses of action that we do not eventually take in the physical realm, these too will be actualized in other systems of probability. He also suggests that we can access these other realities and selves in the dream state, and he even encourages us to learn to switch our focus over to them when we are consciously awake.

In one sense I have no problem with this concept, even though I have not explicitly discussed it in The Book of the Soul to keep things simple. But, for example, it is not so very different from the idea that, during the past-life review and in other interlife exercises, we go back and replay past events but taking different courses of action. So certainly as far as the past is concerned, and I will stick with that concept for the moment before investigating its validity in the next section, it is reasonable to suggest that alternative courses of action are available for us to review retrospectively – and to some extent it may make little difference to our learning process whether these were the ones we actually chose while in the physical realm, or are merely alternative realities that we only explore via other means in the interlife. It is not impossible that these alternatives are 'created' by another part of our consciousness as we go along, although they might just as easily be created instantaneously and retrospectively during the interlife.

Whichever of these is true, there is nothing in this process that would require the alternatives to be played out in full and concurrently by a number of different selves. And yet this is exactly what Seth suggests does happen. Moreover, he insists that they at least consider themselves to have equal validity: 'each of these probable selves consider themselves the real you, of course, and to any one of them you would be the probable self'. But could we have multiple selves operating in multiple realities, all with equal 'validity'? And if we could, how would the basic coherence of the soul be maintained?

Despite his apparent protestations that that the answer to both of these questions is affirmative, Seth himself contradicts such a view when he accepts that there is a unique quality to the historic mass hallucination that we jointly create and experience in the physical realm:

Perhaps your life span runs for seventy-seven years. After death you may, under certain conditions and if you choose, experience the events of those seventy-seven years at your leisure – but not necessarily in terms of continuity. You may alter the events. You can manipulate within that particular dimension of activity that represented your seventy-seven years. If you find severe errors of judgment, you may then correct them. You may perfect, in other words, but you cannot again enter into that frame of reference as a completely participating consciousness following, say, the historic trends of the time, joining into the mass-hallucinated existence that resulted from the applied consciousness of your self and your 'contemporaries'.... Your life is your own personal experience-perspective, and when at death you take it out of the mass physical time context, then you can experience it in many ways.

He also accepts, in the context of the past-life review, that when other souls appear to be present during out reliving of experiences they are only imprinted 'thought-forms', and they do not represent the full consciousness of those other souls – which is indicative of the lack of genuine and full interaction in the process. Having said that, he separately appears to contradict this idea when, in the context of alternative histories of earth as a whole, he describes 'other probable systems of physical reality', as if they all have equal universal validity. There is also his equally contradictory suggestion that exploring probable systems is somehow an alternative to reincarnational existence. I can make no sensible comment on these discrepancies.

So, I would argue that any alternative realities we create only have individual and not universal validity. To that extent, they are not the same as the universal physical experience – and nor, therefore, do the supposed selves that operate in them have equal validity to our main consciousness or soul, not least because they have no genuine interaction with other souls. Indeed, once we do away with Seth's self-contradictory insistence on the homogeneity of these various selves and realities, there is nothing to anchor them to a parallel timeframe. On that basis, I do not believe that it is even appropriate to talk about other selves. Our one true self experiences what it likes, on the one hand participating in the collective physical venture we call incarnation, and on the other individually exploring a myriad of possible alternatives in a psycho-spiritual context.

Finally, let us consider the intriguing question of whether or not all possible permutations of decisions are available for review in the interlife, rather than just the major ones. Seth argues that even the most trivial decisions produce alternative realities: 'your slightest thought gives birth to worlds'. And certainly it is sometimes the small and seemingly inconsequential actions we take that matter most, as is aptly demonstrated by one of the past-life review case studies I present in The Book of the Soul. On the basis that we might sometimes fail to take such actions, it might well be useful to go back and examine the alternatives we would have created if we did pay more attention to the 'little things' in life. That having been said, I would still argue that we would not actually make use of anything like the full range of minutely differentiated alternative realities that might be available to us during the interlife review, because that would simply represent diminishing returns to the experience-leaning process.

Does this tell us anything about when these alternatives are created? I would argue that the majority are only likely to be created retrospectively when they are selected for review and re-enactment during the interlife. After all, it seems to me that if all possibilities were somehow created as we go along, this would represent an enormous waste of effort. However, I would accept that if we invest any great conscious or even subconscious effort in examining alternative courses of action as we go along, then these might to some extent be created at the time.

The Nature of Time

Seth's view of time, in common with that of many esoteric philosophies, is that is does not really exist – at least not in the way that we in the physical realm perceive it, and albeit that this is what allows us to operate effectively in that realm. More specifically, he argues that all incarnate lives – past, present and future – are happening concurrently, and that feedback between them can and does occur.

If we commence by examining the apparent nature of time in the light realms, given that this should be where it is perceived in its pure rather than distorted form, elapsed time is clearly experienced differently in them – just as it often is in dreams, for example. Interlife periods of, say, several hundred years, might feel as if they flash past in the blink of an eye. Panoramic and vivid past-life reviews can sometimes appear almost instantaneous. And that is before we even consider the fact that past-life and probable next-life events are readily available for scrutiny. But does this mean that consecutive time does not exist at all in the light realms? I would argue no, it does not.

None of our pioneers' regression subjects suggests this, although it might be possible to argue that most of us who are still in the reincarnation cycle are relatively inexperienced souls, who remain to some extent constrained by earthly perceptions even in the interlife. Nevertheless, the whole interlife still seems to operate on the basis of consecutive rather than simultaneous experiences, with cause and effect. So, for example, the knowledge gleaned during the past-life review plays an important part in, and is fed into, the activity of next-life planning. Seth himself explicitly discusses this process, and consistently describes these two separate events as occurring consecutively rather that simultaneously.

So let us now turn to the question of whether, even if the concept of consecutive time is a valid one, it can somehow be combined with the concept of concurrent time. Of course, if time somehow flowed in cycles or loops, then events that appeared consecutive would also have a degree of concurrency. This is the basis of the endless speculation about time travel in science fiction books and films. And the reason that it causes its proponents such logistical problems is that they attempt to apply it exclusively to the physical realm, as if such loops would allow someone to actually go back in 'physical' time and act differently, thus setting off a whole new chain of events quite different from those that happened first time round. But clearly I believe that this is a mistaken view, given what I have reported previously about the universal mass hallucination of physical reality being unique and unalterable. And Seth too would surely be forced to concur.

Nevertheless, on an individual level different people remember past events differently; even quite recent events will be recalled quite differently by two participants depending on their subjective viewpoint. So the only thing that gives an event any great validity for any given person is their perception of it – and this perception can change over time. For example, when we revisit past events in our conscious minds we often think about what we can learn from how we or someone else behaved, or even what would have happened if we or they had done something differently. This is a forerunner to how we replay events during past-life reviews with far greater clarity and understanding, seeing them from other angles or even by putting ourselves into one of the other characters' shoes – both of which, as we have seen, are regularly reported interlife tools. Any of these exercises can produce a change in our perceptions that allows us to learn and grow. So we can go back and alter events in a light-realms context, even if this does not alter them in the physical realm or alter any other soul's experience. I would argue that it is in this psycho-spiritual as opposed to physical context that the past is ever with us, and ever able to feedback into our learning-experience loop. That is a long way short of Seth's contention, however, that we are living our past lives concurrently with this one.

What, then, of our future lives? Are these somehow being played out concurrently as Seth suggests, so that they too are part of the feedback loop? I have discussed this at length in chapter 8 of The Book of the Soul, with specific reference to the work of Bruce Goldberg, who is about the only hypnotherapist to have published his attempts to progress subjects into their future lives. I will not therefore repeat all the arguments here. All I will say is that there exists a concept of a 'tapestry' in the light realms in which, at any one moment, a complete and total future for all life in the universe is envisaged. Only in this way can we, for example, plan and choose the major probabilities of our next life during the interlife. But that future at any one moment will never be actualized on the physical plane, because karmic choice and free will alters it from moment to moment. On that basis, I have no hesitation in arguing that, just as past events in the physical realm cannot be fundamentally altered, future events or lives in the physical realm do not already exist except as mere probabilities. Surprisingly Seth provides some support for this view:

Some of the events that I see connected very clearly with these persons in the future may not, in your physical system, occur. They exist as probabilities, as potentials, actualized in thoughts but not turned into definite physical form. I told you that no events were predetermined.

When you understand the nature of reality, then you realize that predictions of future events are basically meaningless. You can predict some events and they can occur, but you create the future in every moment.... You can tune into certain probabilities and predict 'that they will occur', but free will always operates. No god in a giant ivory tower says 'this will happen February 15 at 8.05'; and if no god predicts, then I do not see the point of doing so myself.

That having been said, as we might expect given his insistence elsewhere that our future incarnations are already happening, he extends this idea into that of a definitive future that does already exist by saying the following:

I would have to tune into a future date, in your terms, and probe it with all of its ramifications in order to ascertain which of the probable actions I saw in your 'earlier' would be actualized in your 'later'.

I can only reiterate that, with my limited intellectual capacities, I do not find this contradictory idea that the future already exists in definitive as well as probable terms at all logical. So as for feedback loops with the future, I admit that our current actions are influencing our probable future all the time, but I do not believe that the reverse is true – except perhaps in the sense that the major future probabilities that already exist for our current life, from the interlife plan we made before birth, may be able to exert a limited degree of influence 'in advance' so to speak. But I certainly do not accept that our future incarnations beyond this one already exist in any definitive physical sense. And nor, even to the extent that they may exist as probabilities of which we are currently unaware, do I believe they are capable of looping feedback back into our current life. This would set up expectations that would prejudice our current attitudes to such an extent that the operation of karmic free will would be severely impaired.

Science, Religion and History

Seth discusses a number of other subjects in Seth Speaks that are not uninteresting, and arguably provide additional context within which his material can be judged. I do not have the space or inclination to discuss most of them in any detail here, but I will provide a brief summary along with a few pertinent observations. From a scientific perspective, his supporters argue that he displays a knowledge of quantum theory that is in advance of the general state of that theory at the time of writing. He adds to this a description of 'coordination points' where space-time is warped such that they provide increased potential for creating the physical reality that we perceive, as well as of how our thoughts are involved in this process because they are essentially 'electromagnetic energy units'. And from a psychological perspective, Seth describes various states of consciousness in some detail, relates them to dream states, and discusses Jung's anima and animus archetypes at some length, while in addition describing the way in which dream symbolism is largely entirely personal and cannot be interpreted using universal rules.

He also has much to say about the key figures, origins and intentions of, and the symbolism underlying, various religions, most notably Christianity and Christ – concerning whom he has some quite controversial revelations – but also Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. I am particularly keen on his take on the latter, and especially their doctrine of 'no-soul' or 'no-self', which corresponds exactly to the one I put forward in The Book of the Soul:

... the Buddhists come closer, generally speaking, to a description of the nature of reality. They have not understood the eternal validity of the soul, however, in terms of its exquisite invulnerability, nor been able to hold a feeling for its unique character.

In addition, Seth reveals the ways in which religious records were often deliberately falsified for political and other reasons, again a favourite topic of my own especially in Genesis Unveiled, and makes the assertion found in so much channelled material that important undiscovered manuscripts remain hidden in old monasteries – especially this time in Spain rather than, for example, Tibet – which would contain some fascinating revelations.

However, it is when we come to supposed historical matters that Seth's material is arguably at its most controversial, and this I will examine in some detail. He opens by discussing what appears to be a previous earth:

... some data concerning a lost religion, belonging to a people of which you have no information. These people lived on a planet in the same space that your earth now occupies, 'before' your planet existed. They destroyed it through their own error, and were reincarnated when your planet was prepared. Their memories became the basis for the birth of religion as you now think of it.

He then introduces the idea of 'reincarnational civilizations', arguing that each has 'come to our point of physical development and either gone beyond it or destroyed their particular civilization' through 'aggression and a lack of understanding and spirituality':

They were given another chance, having the unconscious knowledge not only of their failure, but the reasons behind it. They then began with a psychological head start, as they formed new primitive groupings. Others, solving the problems, left your physical planet for other points in the physical universe. When they reached that level of development, however, they were spiritually and psychically mature, and were able to utilize energies of which you now have no practical knowledge. Earth to them now is the legendary home. They formed new races and species that could no longer physically accommodate themselves to your atmospheric conditions.

Unfortunately it is not clear whether these people left while still incarnate using some sort of physical space travel to colonize other planets, or simply chose to incarnate on other planets instead of earth at some point. In any case, he then continues:

On your planet they were involved in three particular civilizations long before the time of Atlantis; when, in fact, your planet was in a somewhat different position.... Particularly in relationship to three of the other planets that you know. The poles were reversed.... These civilizations were highly technological.

The first of these civilizations is hardly described at all, other than that it 'generally followed our own line of development and faced many of the problems that we do now', and was 'largely situated in what we call Asia Minor'. But we have much more on the second civilization, called 'Lumania':

The second one was, in fact, far superior to your own along these lines. Sound was used far more effectively, not only for healing and in wars, but also to power vehicles of locomotion, and to bring about the movement of physical matter.... The strength of this second civilization lay mainly in the areas now known as Africa and Australia.

Seth goes on to describe how the landmasses were somewhat different then, and how the Lumanians did not attempt to expand out of their own territory in any attempt to civilize the 'large, unorganized, dispersed, primitive culture' that occupied other parts of the planet. They were substantially telepathic, but could also convey a far more subtle and multi-sensual or dimensional range of thoughts and images than we can now in both their spoken language and their art. He initially insists that they had lived in cities that were protected from outside interference by 'energy fields', but then describes how most of their cities were underground and reached via natural caves. They also set up underground outposts in various areas to keep an eye on their more primitive neighbours, especially in the Pyrenees because 'giant-sized' men lived there.

However, in their 'experiment' they were so determined to eschew violence and aggression that they created 'energy blockages' that changed them physiologically, in a detrimental way. So more and more they left to live and interbreed with the more primitive cultures around them in the hope of balancing out their physiological flaws, but this experiment too was not a success and they eventually died out. Having said that, Seth also asserts that they still 'coexist in time' with us and there are 'bleed-throughs' – as well as that there is, of course, another system of reality in which their experiment with non-violence was a success, and in which 'a completely new type of human being emerged'.

He also suggests that some of the Lumanians' underground dwellings were discovered by the third civilization, which led them to copy some of their art as best they could in the cave paintings that we now associate with the Upper Palaeolithic 'explosion' in southern Europe. This is, however, all we ever get to hear about the third civilization, which still supposedly predated Atlantis. He mentions this latter 'fourth civilization' on a number of occasions in passing, but the only real details we obtain of the Atlanteans are that they were able to use coordination points to 'achieve great stability in roads, buildings and the like'. Seth himself is supposed to have had incarnations in both Lumania and Atlantis.

What are we to make of all this supposedly historical material? It follows a trail first laid out by the Theosophists led by Madame Blavatsky in the late nineteenth century, and continued by various other supposed seers and prophets ever since. There are considerable similarities with other supposedly channelled material, including most notably that of Blavatsky herself and of Edgar Cayce. Readers of Genesis Unveiled especially will not be surprised to hear that I am extremely dubious about most of this – at least, again, in terms of it having happened in the physical context of earth – for the following reasons.

First, I find it cosmologically implausible that there could have been any sort of planet occupying the same space that earth now does beforehand. And even if there had been one, it would have had to have been there for long enough for life forms of the same complexity as modern humans to evolve on it. Both of these are ideas that our modern understanding of the development of our solar system simply does not support. However I would also emphasize that Seth does appear to support the idea of evolution at least to some extent – and not, for example, the Hindu worldview that the earth is created and destroyed on a regular cyclic basis, with humankind reappearing fully fledged at the outset each time.

Second, there is nothing in the archaeological record to support Seth's idea that previous physical civilizations on earth developed the advanced levels of technology he suggests. As I explain in Genesis Unveiled severe doubts surround the provenance of most of the supposedly ancient anomalous artefacts that have been found, and nor is there any reason to suppose that the supposed level of technology displayed by, for example, the ancient Egyptians must have derived from an earlier advanced civilization. Admittedly we might give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that those previous civilizations that migrated to other star systems did so in a reincarnational rather than a space travel context. And the idea of our forebears possibly having mastered sound and acoustics far better than we have is something I have written about in both Giza: The Truth and Genesis Unveiled. But that does not alter the fact that he is still talking about highly advanced technology, in terms of building cities, having vehicles to travel around in, and so on.

Third, Seth says absolutely nothing about the timescales for these civilizations, but I tend to favour the orthodox view of modern human evolution and to place the emergence of our species at around 200,000 years ago or thereabouts. It may of course be that he means that all of these civilizations came and went within that timescale, but this seems unlikely given his context of a 'previous earth', of the modern earth occupying a 'different position' – an idea he does not clarify even when pressed – and of landmasses being in a somewhat different position from now.

It is also interesting that Seth should refer to the Lumanians as one of the predecessors of the Atlanteans, because as most people will know the other major civilization discussed in supposedly esoteric circles is that of the Lemurians, and the two words are not totally dissimilar. He also makes another brief reference to the earlier civilization of 'Mu', although no details are given. Now, as I show in Genesis Unveiled, the word Lemuria derives from a mistaken mid-nineteenth century assumption about the distribution of Lemurs in the vicinity of the Indian Ocean, which led to the idea of a former landmass between Africa and India that has now sunk – albeit that ever since then it has come to be associated with a supposed former landmass in the Pacific. By contrast the word Mu – which is often merged with the idea of Lemuria – stems from a complete misunderstanding, and arguably even deliberate fabrication, of certain aspects of the Mayan alphabet originally perpetrated by a certain Charles-Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg, again in the mid-nineteenth century. I can appreciate that Seth might want to use words with which we are all familiar, such as Atlantis, but he does not adopt Lemuria instead of Lumania if the two are indeed synonymous. So why we would he also use a word like 'Mu' without any clarification, when it is of such obviously dubious pedigree? It is also notable that his description of the Lumanians deserting their cities to interbreed with their more primitive neighbours has all the hallmarks of the biblical account of the antediluvian 'fallen angels', and it has to be said that a version of this tradition seems to be de rigour for virtually all channelled material. These last two factors especially may or may not be considered as major pointers to the reliability, or rather fallibility, and indeed true source of at least some of the Seth material.

Moreover, we cannot escape the conclusion that much of Seth's historical material appears to be confusing at best, and downright inconsistent at worst. He is not challenged on these limitations during the sessions, but I would allow him one major escape route, as I describe in Genesis Unveiled and The Book of the Soul. And that is that, if these concepts of earlier technological civilizations have any validity at all – and I am not necessarily suggesting that they do, despite their steadily increasing prevalence – it lies in them representing light-realm 'memories', either of nonphysical realms or of other physical planets. In the main it is not possible to suggest that this is what Seth himself is describing, because he emphatically places his three or four most recent previous civilizations in the physical context of earth itself. However, he does make one brief reference to 'ethical codes originating in the time of Atlantis that were given by a race from another star' – although again it is not clear whether he is suggesting that these were physical extraterrestrial visitors, or reincarnating souls who migrated to earth.

Having said all that, threaded throughout much of Seth's historical material are souls he refers to as 'speakers'. This is the one aspect of this material for which I have to admit a good deal of support, because it corroborates in a quite remarkable way all the aspects of one of the central themes that I discuss in Genesis Unveiled – that of advanced angelic-type souls who choose to incarnate on earth from time to time to reassert the universal and timeless spiritual wisdom that is our birthright. From the geographical reference Seth seems to suggest that these speakers originated in the time of the Lumanians:

The Speakers predated the emergence of any religions that you know, and the religions of the Speakers arose spontaneously in many scattered areas, then grew like wildfire from the heart of Africa and Australia. There was one separate group in an area where the Aztecs dwelled at a later date.... Various bands of the Speakers continued through the centuries. Because they were trained so well, the messages retained their authenticity. They believed, however, that it was wrong to set words into written form, and so did not record them.... The Speakers, singly, existed in your Stone Age period, and were leaders. Their abilities helped the cavemen survive. There was little physical communication, however, in those days between the various Speakers, and some were unaware of the existence of the others. Their message was as 'pure' and undistorted as possible. It was for this reason, however, through the centuries, that many who heard it translated it into parables and tales... [and their] distortions have hidden the messages.... This inner knowledge has always been available, but has to become physically manifest – literally made flesh. The Speakers were the first to impress this inner knowledge upon the physical system, to make it physically known. Sometimes only one or two Speakers were alive in several centuries. Sometimes there were many. They looked around them and knew that the world sprang from their interior reality. They told others. They knew that the seemingly solid natural objects about them were composed of many minute consciousnesses.

As to how the speakers gained their information, Seth seems to corroborate my own suggestion that at least some of them would have brought more conscious knowledge of and from the light realms with them into their physical incarnation, even if such information is to some extent available to all of us on a subconscious level:

At times they were consistently, consciously and egotistically aware of this information. It was then that it was memorized. They realized that it was always available at an unconscious level.

In addition, although I tend to be quite hard on the ancient Egyptians – suggesting that their worldview was rather primitive, especially in its apparent rejection of reincarnation – Seth does have something interesting to say about the way in which the Speakers influenced them:

The Egyptian religion was largely based upon the work of the Speakers, and great care was given to their training. The outward manifestations given to the masses of the people became so distorted, however, that the original unity of the religion finally decayed. However, efforts were being made then to map inner reality in ways that have not been attempted since.

He goes on to point out that there have been 'less than thirty great Speakers.... The Christ entity was one. The Buddha was another.' Having said that, and presumably on a somewhat lesser level, he asserts that not only was he himself a speaker in his earthly incarnations, but also that his channeller Jane Roberts and her husband Robert, plus at least one members of Jane's ESP class, had been and presumably still were speakers. I cannot help but suggest that this tends to smack of the kind of ego associated with, for example, the Edgar Cayce readings – in which, as I point out in The Book of the Soul, not only is Cayce himself the reincarnation of an important Atlantean priest, but most of his subjects also had prominent positions in Atlantis and elsewhere.

Conclusion

To draw definitive conclusions about the reliability of the material in Seth Speaks is enormously difficult. It includes spiritual, philosophical, scientific and psychological observations of great erudition and apparent insight. But at the same time much of it at least appears to be self-contradictory. It also contains, for example, historical material that is massively out of step with cosmology, geology and archaeology – even allowing for the fact that we may yet make important further breakthroughs in these areas. And there are elements that are sufficiently similar to much other channelled material, including arguably the ego massaging of his audience, that when all of these factors are taken together I am more inclined to see this as fallibility in at least some of Seth's material, rather than, for example, further corroboration of genuine history. These attitudes may lay me open to charges of selectivity, and of being closed to new ideas, but I have had to argue against these before. Ultimately my answer as always is that I use science and logic as best I can, but cannot avoid leaving my own intuition about context and other factors to do the rest – which is, I guess, true of any of us.

I have pointed out those areas in which I am thoroughly in agreement with Seth's material. But even if we leave aside the more outlandish historical elements, we should still accept that none of it should be regarded as 'gospel truth' and all elements are open to question. On that basis, let us return to the three overriding elements of his worldview. One can quite see how anyone who accepts the proposition that the physical world is only a set of perceptions that we create for ourselves, that there are multiple realities that are effectively indistinguishable from each other, and that time can flow in loops, would regard the universe as far too complex for our limited human consciousness to understand properly. Seth is effectively just such a person, and he may yet be proved right. It may be that all his apparent contradictions can be explained by him having to swap between what he really knows and trying to put it into terms that we can understand. All I can say is that the other research material I have collated in The Book of the Soul does not support the broad sweep of his worldview except in a very few highly specific ways.

So, I do accept that to a large extent the physical world is just an illusion in which we create our own reality, but within certain karmic and collective limitations. I do accept that to some extent there are multiple realities, but only in a psycho-spiritual and individual context, so that they are not the same as the universal experience of 'physical reality'. And I accept that our perception of time in the physical realm is limited and that feedback loops do exist, but again only in an individual psycho-spiritual context and primarily in relation to the past and not the future.

That having been said, and to reiterate the view I expressed at the outset, the Seth material is fascinating and should not be written off as just another hotchpotch of channelled nonsense. And even if one takes the somewhat sceptical view that it was not channelled at all but entirely derived from a purely earthly source – which is not a view that I necessarily support, although I have spent little time investigating this issue – it is sufficiently erudite and thought provoking that one would have to give full credit to that source.

Source References

From Roberts, Jane, Seth Speaks, Bantam, 1974

Confirmation of the Interlife Experience: transition problems caused by attachments to physical plane, chapter 9, pp. 135 and 147 and chapter 11, p. 168; telepathic interactions with former friends and relatives, chapter 9, p. 137; rest and rehabilitation in interlife, chapter 9, p. 146; projection of appropriate psychic form, chapter 9, pp. 148–9; expectations determine perceptions after death, including of heaven and hell, chapter 9, pp. 134–5 and 139 and chapter 11, pp. 179–80; souls at different stages of advancement, chapter 9, p. 147 and chapter 11, p. 174; past-life reviews and increased awareness, chapter 9, pp. 138 and 143 and chapter 11, pp. 168 and 174–5; training in specialisms, chapter 11, pp. 187–90; sabbaticals in other realms, chapter 11, p. 173; next-life planning, chapter 4, p. 66, chapter 11, pp. 170–1 and 174, chapter 12 pp. 195–6 and chapter 13, p. 221; souls who are impatient to return, chapter 11, pp. 171, 174 and 185; soul's own choice to learn or not in interlife, chapter 9, pp. 137–8; no 'action and reaction' karma, chapter 4, pp. 65–6; adverse circumstances as learning opportunities, chapter 12, p. 203; importance of understanding 'negative influences', chapter 12, p. 205; ghosts as partial energy forms working out unresolved emotions, chapter 10, p. 164; God as 'All That Is', chapter 14, pp. 229–31; everything has a consciousness of sorts, chapter 1, p. 14; consciousness precedes form, chapter 20, p. 350; no transmigration of souls, chapter 20, pp. 347–8; the birth process, chapter 13, pp. 220–4; death as a process, chapter 9, pp. 138–9; psychological divisions in the light realms, chapter 11, pp. 184–5.

[As far as the three main elements of Seth's worldview are concerned, they are spread so entirely throughout his book in a somewhat jumbled fashion that it is impossible to provide sensible references for the summaries I have provided, other than to direct those interested to read it in its entirety as I have done. Nevertheless, specific quotes I have used can be referenced as follows.]

Creating our own Reality: importance of dream state and comparison to interlife, chapter 7, p. 106 and chapter 10, pp. 154–5.

Multiple Realities: switching focus to other selves and realities, chapter 7, p. 103 and chapter 10, p. 159; all probable selves and systems are equally valid, chapter 14, p. 227 and chapter 16, p. 258; cannot alter the historic mass-hallucinated past, chapter 10, pp. 161–2; even trivial decisions create other realities, chapter 16, p. 257.

The Nature of Time: definitive and probable futures, chapter 20, pp. 336–7 and appendix, pp. 468–9.

Science, Religion and History: aspects of quantum theory, chapter 16, pp. 264–7; coordination points and electromagnetic energy units, chapter 5; description of various states of consciousness, chapter 19; Jung's anima and animus archetypes, chapter 13, pp. 210–15; personal dream symbolism and its relationship to other levels of consciousness, chapter 18, pp. 287–98; Christ and Christianity, chapter 14, pp. 231–4, chapter 21, pp. 370–3 and chapter 22, pp. 416–18; the 'next coming', chapter 21, pp. 375–9; Judaism and Islam, chapter 21, pp. 381–5; Buddhism, chapter 17, p. 271; falsification of historical records, appendix, pp. 421–8; undiscovered records, chapter 17, p. 272; previous earth in same space, introduction, p. xi; three reincarnational civilizations before Atlantis, chapter 15; passing references to Atlantis, chapter 11, p. 187 and chapter 22, p. 399; Atlanteans use of coordination points, appendix p. 432; civilization of Mu, chapter 20, p. 361; Atlantean ethical codes from extraterrestrial source, appendix, p. 463; speakers, chapter 17, pp. 272–7 and chapter 20, pp. 331–4.