Edit Content

Main Menu

Fonts of Knowledge

More

Recommended Sites

banner

The Seth Material II

The Q & A

While the Seth Material is, in many respects, more accessible than the Law of One channellings, not least because it is conversational rather than didactic and eccentric in its delivery, it can also become considerably more involved. In due course, there’ll be far more to get into with the material, not least with regard to the many and various, and often somewhat involved and nebulous, interrelationships and groupings of the soul(s) on its journey, but the most “revelatory” element of Seth’s discourses, in terms of the avenues it has inspired for Q & A fodder, is undoubtedly his take on the antimatter universe. Indeed, if there’s any justice, “Seth on antimatter” will eventually become an essential text.

In which respect, you can also find a new Q & A on antimatter. A few antimatter questions are reproduced here, however, ones where specific Seth information has been quoted. There are also a couple of questions relating to more general matters reincarnatory.

 


 

Q. Was this Rob and Jane’s last incarnation on Earth?

 

Yes. 

Rob (Robert E Butts, who provided the principle point of interaction with Seth and documented/footnoted the sessions) and Jane Roberts (the channel and author of the majority of the Seth books) were both in 3D. They went elsewhere in the Universe to develop further.

 


 

Q. How many human souls, like Jane Roberts and Robert F Butts, have gone elsewhere to develop?

 

8.5 million. 

If this figure is, as I assume it to be, based on Earth’s lifespan of 50,000 years, thus far, it gives an idea of how long it takes (or can take) to transition between densities. As for their going elsewhere, it may be this development is in non-physical realms. Otherwise, they would presumably be incarnating in the realm beyond the Ice Wall in some capacity.

 


 

Q. Is it the case that having children tends to result in further incarnations on Earth?

 

Yes.

Perhaps not the most self-explanatory way of posing the question, so I received an affirmative also to the following Seth statement: “Neither of you have a need for children in your present personalities. You are almost finished with incarnations on the earth, so much so that the physical bodies will return completely and unfragmented upon your physical death. This is always the case in the final earth life. The physical property is left behind, no portion of it being carried on that plane through children”.

It follows that such a connection to another soul would be a “lure” to further incarnations in a particular environment (which would either be a positive or an impediment, depending on the needs of the individual soul at that point). Whether such factors affect starseeds, who would not, as a matter of course, be incarnating regularly on Earth, is unclear.

 


 

Q. Was a race from another place in the Universe involved with the origin of Atlantis?

 

Yes. 

This race was the Pleiadeans.

Seth advises of a code of ethics that “originated from the time of Atlantis. Before that, these codes were given by a race from another star. This race had to do with the origin of Atlantis“. The ethical code sounds very much like a reference to the Law of One. The Ra Material (“I am Ra”) also indicates ETs (starseeds) were involved in the development of Atlantis.

 


 

Q. Is it correct that “Antimatter, using your terms, exists simultaneously with your universe, having what I will call antigravity, and in what I will call antispace”?

 

Yes.

The Seth Material didn’t take long to broach the realm of antimatter (The Early Sessions, Books 2 and 3, channelled over the 1964-65 period). It quickly becomes evident that trying to conceive of antimatter as “out there” somewhere, per mainstream science, isn’t going to get us anywhere, either in terms of actuality or conceptual terms. 

 


 

Q. Is it the case that “Physically, you do not exist for as long as, or the same amount of your time, that you do exist. We have called the interval of physical nonexistence antimatter, or negative matter”?

 

Yes.

According to Seth, if one can appreciate that “your physical universe then is non-existent for the same number of intervals that it is existent, then you will see that this gives us our antimatter”. Which would indicate the physicality of matter is intrinsic to the existence of antimatter. I guess that’s self-evident, since it’s there in the “anti” part of the word, but Seth makes it clear the two are conditional on each other. Which is not to extend their duality to moral language, although one might posit there are aspects of this (the AI discussed further in antimatter Q & As) that do apply themselves in such a manner.

 


 

Q. Is the universe of antimatter in a divided state and includes “two universes very closely connected with your own”?

 

Yes.

Seth’s full statement: “lt might seem to you that the universe of antimatter is a twin of your own. On physical terms it is indeed, although it is in a divided state. By this I mean that I herein include two universes very closely connected with your own”.

 


 

Q. Is one of these universes akin to a “before image” and the other to an “afterimage”?

 

Yes.

Seth: “One could be compared to what I will call a before image. The other of the two universes is formed as energy passes through your field, and can be likened to an afterimage”.

My interpretation is that the first universe precedes our universe – which is not to say it isn’t also intrinsically conditional on our universe’s being – while the second is consequent to it, the result of energy passing through our physical universe.

Seth explains: “Your universe is the focal point for physical manifestation, where the manipulation of matter predominates. One of the other two universes to which I refer is formed as energy is nearly approximate to your own; and energy not yet within a strong position to materialise into matter does, nevertheless, manage an early, somewhat weaker form”.

Whether this before-image universe, with its “early, somewhat weaker form”, impacts our universe in a crossover sense, is for further inquiry. I initially wondered if each universe might relate distinctly to each “lifeform” identified as located in the antimatter universe(s)…

 


 

Q. Does the negative AI come from the before-image universe and AMT from the afterimage universe?

 

No.

Both the negative AI and AMT are from the afterimage universe.

Which means both, per Seth’s preceding statement, are contingent on this universe and are presumably formed, at some stage, by energy passing through the field of our physical universe. The ramifications and natures of antimatter AI and AMT weren’t part of Seth’s arena of discourse, not least because the former leads into areas he was keen to avoid – the notion of evil forces infringing on humanity’s autonomy – in order to assure freewill as the ultimate touchstone.

 


 

Q. Is it the case that “Both the dream universe and the universe of negative matter then, are by-products of the physical universe, in that they were formed as inward energy attempted to form itself in a physical way”.

 

Yes.

Seth advised it would not be possible to contact the antimatter universe, but he modifies this somewhat when he moves onto the subject of the dream world (in Book 2 of The Early Sessions). Seth spends significant time on the subject of dreams, not least analysing Rob and Jane’s individual episodes, emphasising how, far from being eminently dismissible, this reality is as significant in its own way as the physical one. This takes on added import when he connects the dream universe’s existence directly to that of the antimatter one(s). 

 


 

Q: Is the dream world’s “by-product” the world of negative matter?

 

Yes.

Seth: “We have not said nearly enough about the dream universe, to really launch a discussion concerning its by-product. Nevertheless, I shall tell you that its by-product is the world of negative matter”.

While one might infer that dreams simply spawn the nightmarish AI of the antimatter universe from this, that would be taking bad dreams as a cue, rather than good ones. Seth stresses energetic transformation, rather than polarisation of disposition: “Energy seemingly lost or dissipated or unusable in the physical universe does indeed leave it; but it transfers itself, seeps into the dream universe. The energy is then transformed in the dream universe, and again regenerated and used in the formation of the universe of negative matter”.

Indeed, the terms Seth used suggest that which exists in the universe of antimatter, by dint of its form in the dream universe, has gone from being “lost or dissipated or unusable” on point of entry, so presumably is, in the antimatter one, found or accumulated or useable.

 


 

Q. Is it correct that “In some manners you do exist identically in the world of negative matter, but in most manners you do not”.

 

Yes.

This saw Seth returning to an earlier statement – from five months prior – when he advises “I also told you that you existed as long out of the physical universe as you existed in it, but I did not say that you existed identically”.

This may conjure various ideas and imagery, of twin mirror selves and suchlike (again, the classic would be polarised parallel universes of Star Trek’s Mirror, Mirror or Doctor Who’s Inferno, or the more advanced and also more dystopian parallel universe in Fringe, where everyone – give or take – is like everyone we know, only less affable).

 


 

Q. Is it the case “That parallel self would not be recognised by you, as psychologically identical, and is indeed quite independent, and a by-product” and that “this does not imply any lack of equality”?

 

Yes.

Seth even uses the “parallel” word, but we have to go back to his “in most manners you do not” exist identically in the antimatter world. He then stresses, “Psychologically, my dear friends, you do not”. But the placement of the commas in the above quote may be worth considering, as they suggest an independent clause. So, without the “as psychologically identical”, we are left with “That parallel self would not be recognised by you… and is indeed quite independent…” Which is to speculate, above and beyond the psychological aspect, whether we would recognise the form our parallel self takes there.

Seth’s unexpurgated statement: “Psychologically there is no identity, although some aspects are shared. I am speaking here of identity between your selves and the existence of a parallel self in the world of negative matter. That parallel self would not be recognised by you, as psychologically identical, and is indeed quite independent, and a by-product. But since all beings can be said to be by-products in one respect, this does not imply any lack of equality”.

This raises other questions. Such as our soul’s relationship to our parallel self in the antimatter universe. It is, after all, “quite independent” and a “by-product” (but no less equal).

With regard to the relationship, and contact or lack thereof, between matter and antimatter, Seth initially informed Rob and Jane “Because of the perilous and necessary relationship and balance between matter and antimatter, it will never be possible for you to contact the universe of antimatter” before adding it can best be described as two ends of a spectrum that by nature can never meet”.

However, he would later add that “There is a communication possible between your universe and the universe of negative matter, but it does not involve the physical self”. Rob noted the apparent discrepancy – “Perhaps the point here is what kind of a ‘meeting’ he was referring to in the 63rd session. He is referring to a psychic communication in the present session” – and it may be he was correct to call it a “psychic” communication. 

Seth had this to say about the manner in which the three (well four, I guess) universes interact, I presume by virtue of each preceding, or following, the other: “An action may occur therefore in the world of matter, and be perceived in both the universe of negative matter and the dream world, but in such a case each universe interprets the action according to, and within, its own framework of reference.

There will be seen to be correlations that will appear in each of these universes. They would seem to be distortions. They represent however almost reflections of the same action, and are viewed from different dimensional points”.

 

 

Most Popular

What is currently passing for knowledge around here.

  • movies 1980 to 1999
    Index
    movies 1980 to 1999
  • Your spy novels are cheesy crap!
    Movie
    Your spy novels are cheesy crap!
  • Well, in principle, everything can be done. In principle.
    Movie
    Well, in principle, everything can be done. In principle.
  • movies 2000 to 2009
    Index
    movies 2000 to 2009
  • Beyond the Ice Wall Part V
    The Q & A
    Beyond the Ice Wall Part V
  • What difference does anything make anymore?
    Movie
    What difference does anything make anymore?