Text: Subject: [science-l] Seth on violence ate: 30 Sep 1998 21:43:54 -0000 rom: Barry Carter o: Science & Spirituality List Dear Friends, At 09:09 PM 9/30/98 -0000, Joe Wolf wrote: >My original post (Sept.29) on this subject actually addressed the second ssue: how=20 do we correct political problems? I want to be honest with you, Dale, and lease=20 forgive me if I am wrong. I had the impression from a few of your past omments=20 (9/15/98 Re: retort to ZPE??) that they indicated some antagonism towards ur=20 government authorities. It was this what prompted my post. I am certainly or=20 cleaning up this mess, but we all know that the plans for correction have o be=20 kept free of antagonism on the spiritual plane. Otherwise we encounter nnecessary=20 reversals and violence later on. I am not saying that we should not be ggressive -=20 we should be. But there is a difference between aggression and violence, s Seth=20 has pointed out so convincingly (you can see that I am a Seth-fan :-)).=20 Here is an appropriate quote from Seth on violence. Quoted from Conversations with Seth, Volume Two,=20 y Sue Watkins, pg. 327 ----------------------------------- Seth regarded Joel for a long moment and his voice turned somber. "Now, in he first place," he said, "there are several things you must understand. ome of these things you can misinterpret, and so I go lightly in class ith them... but basically, you do violence to no one. Basically, you annot hurt anything, but as long as you think that you can, then you must well within that reality."=20 "No one could hurt your friend's fish, even if it were a live one, in your erms. In your frame of reference, no thing, in your terms, is hurt ithout giving acceptance to the hurt; without attracting it and without ringing it to itself; for within your frame of reference, you form your wn reality. Not only human beings form their reality, but all onsciousness forms its reality." "This does not mean I am saying kill, kill, kill," Seth admonished. "You o not understand the holy and sacred nature of life or energy and that you ANNOT misuse it. You may THINK you misuse it, but you are not ALLOWED to isuse it. You are not ALLOWED to destroy. While you live with these hings, you must deal with them and bear their consequences. If you kill nd believe that you kill, you will bear those consequences at this level f your development, but to think that you can destroy a consciousness ould make the gods laugh. You cannot destroy one flower seed, much less a an!" ---------------------------------- and from pg. 333.. "So it shall be done to you as you do. And, as you think, so is your orld. The reality that you have is a replica of your thoughts. If you do ot like the world, you must change your thoughts, and no exterior anipulation will change the face of your experience one iota if you do not hange your dreams and your thoughts!" "You create the mountains. You create your bodies. You create the easons, and the continents, and the rivers. You create -" Seth glanced own at Renee' Levine and Stewie Gould - "Renee's smile, and the hand upon hich Stewie's head rests. And the war, and the pests, ALL of the pests, hat seem to haunt mankind - war and poverty - you create those." "It is your world. Then change it - now!" ------------------------------------------- In session 18, Jan. 22, 1964 Seth said: SETH Dreams and Projection of Consciousness pages 122 & 113) "The experiences of the tree are extremely deep...They feel their growing. hey listen to their growing as you might listen to you own heartbeat. They xperience their oneness with their own growth, and they also feel pain. he pain, while definite, unpleasant and sometimes agonizing, is not of an motional nature in the same way that you experience pain. In some ways, t is even a deeper thing. The analogy may not be perfect, far from it, ut it is as if your breath were to be suddenly cut off - in a manner, this omewhat approximates pain for a tree. ..The tree is also aware of its environment to an astonishing degree." "The sacredness of life cannot be sacrificed for life's convenience, or the uality of life itself will suffer. In the same manner, say, the There is ne commandment above all, in practical terms--a Christian commandment that an be used as a yardstick. It is good because it is something you can nderstand practically: "Thou shalt not kill." That is clear enough. nder most conditions you know when you have killed. That[commandment] is much better road to follow, for example, than: "You shall love your eighbor as yourself," for many of you do not love yourselves to begin ith, and can scarcely love your neighbor as well. The idea is that if you ove your neighbor you will not treat him poorly, much less kill him--but he commandment: "Thou shalt not kill," says you shall not kill your eighbor no matter how you feel about him. So let us say in a new ommandment: "Thou shall not kill even in pursuit of your ideals." What does that mean? In practical terms it would mean that you would not age war for the sake of peace. It would mean that you did not kill nimals in experiments, taking their lives in order to protect the acredness of human life. That would be a prime directive: "Thou shall not ill even in pursuit of your ideals."--for man has killed for the sake of is ideals at least as much as he has ever killed for greed, or lust, or ven in the pursuit of power on its own merits. You are a fanatic if you consider (underlined) possible killing for the ursuit of your ideal. For example, your ideal may be--for ideals iffer--the production of endless energy for the uses of mankind, and you ay believe so fervently in that ideal--this added convenience to ife--that you considered the hypothetical possibility of that convenience eing achieved at the risk of losing some lives along the way. That is anaticism. It means that you are not willing to take the actual steps in physical eality to achieve the ideal, but that you believe that the end justifies he means; "Certainly some lives may be lost along the way, but overall, ankind will benefit." That is the usual argument. The sacredness of life annot be sacrificed for life's convenience, or the quality of life itself ill suffer. In the same manner, say, the ideal is to protect human life, nd in the pursuit of that ideal you give generations of various animals eadly diseases, and sacrifice their lives. Your justification may be that eople have souls and animals do not, or that the quality of life is less n the animals, but regardless of those arguments this is fanaticism--and he quality of human life itself suffers as a result, for those who acrifice any kind of life along the way lose some respect for all life, uman life included. The ends do not justify the means (all very mphatically). Session 850 The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events by Jane Roberts I am not condemning western medicine per se, however, but merely pointing ut its many detrimental aspects. Medicinal science is also in a state of ransition, and it is just as important - if not more so - that it examine ts concepts as well as its techniques. The idea of using animals for experimentation has far more drawbacks than dvantages; there is the matter of one kind of conciousness definitely aking advantage of another kind, and thus going counter to nature's ooperative predisposition. In the distant past some ancient civilizations did indeed use animals in uch a fashion, but in a far different framework. The doctors or priests umbly stated their problems verbally and through ritualistic dancing, and hen requested the help of the animal - so that the animals were not acrificed, in those terms, nor taken advantage of. Instead, they united in cooperative venture, in which animals and man both understood that no onsciousness truly died but only changed its form. Animals' have indeed often been quite helpful to man in various healing ituations and encounters, but in all such cases these were cooperative entures. (4:36.) This leads me of course to at least mention here the cruel methods sed in the slaughtering of animals and fowls for human consumption. The reatures are treated as if they possessed no feel-ing or consciousness of heir own - and such attitudes show a most unfortunate misreading of atural events. As a direct result, at least as many diseases develop hrough such procedures as would exist in a highly primitive society with nsanitary conditions. Period. In that kind of setting, however, balances would right themselves because he basic understanding between living creatures would be maintained. You annot divorce philosophy from action, and the cruelty in slaughterhouses ould not be perpetrated if it were not for distorted philosophies dealing it the survival of the fittest on the one hand, and the egotistical ssumption that God gave man animals to do with as man wished. End of dictation. (4:43.) Take to heart what I said about Ruburt's knee, so hat he realizes in fact that the healing processes are indeed operating ithin him all the time. That realization will help change conditions nough so that the two of you can be home together sooner tan you may think ossible. Again, I activate those coordinates that=85 -The Way Toward Health by Jane Roberts >From Session 32, March 4, 1964 (Early Sessions, 1:248-249): Seth: "Killing except for self-protection will be paid for. The idea of illing is what is at fault. If you agree with the killing of birds for xample, you wind up with the killing of men. You will all be taught the acredness of all life, and in the most practical way." Rob: "How about our killing animals for food?" Seth: "On your plane the hunter and the prey system is at this time a ecessary one but it will not always be this way. A time will come when ou will not have to kill in order to exist, and the balance of nature will ake care of itself. This time is sooner on the way than you think. In our country, if there is peace, you will see its beginning in your ifetimes." Rob: "Does this include doing away with slaughterhouses?" Seth: "It most certainly does. This involves your own intellectual echnology, which will be quite able to maintain its population with ynthetic proteins. However this technological development will come first; nfortunately the corresponding ethical evolution will follow after." _________________________________ And here is an interesting quote from "Seth Speaks" (pp. 200-202) relating o environmental problems and over-population: First of all, as a race, in the context of normal usage, you have onsidered yourselves as apart from the rest of nature and consciousness. Your own survival as a species was your main concern. You considered other pecies only in the light of their use to you. You did not have any true onception of the great sacredness of all consciousness, nor of your elationship within it. You were losing your grasp of that great truth. In the present circumstances you are carrying that idea forward=97of racial urvival regardless of the consequences, the idea of changing the nvironment to suit your own purposes; and this has led you to a disregard f spiritual truths. In physical reality, therefore, you are seeing the results. Now those ersonalities who are returning are doing so for various reasons. Some of hem are drawn to physical life again because of these attitudes. They are hose who in the past, in your terms, strove for physical existence without onsideration for the rights of other species. They are driven to return ecause of their own desires. The race must learn the value of the individual man. The race is also earning its dependence upon other species, and beginning to comprehend its art in the whole framework in physical reality. Now: Some individuals are being reborn at this time simply to help you nderstand. They are forcing the issue, and forcing the crisis, for you till have time to change your ways. You are working on two main problems, ut both involve the sacredness of the individual, and the individual's elationship with others and with all physically oriented consciousness. The problem of war will sooner or later teach you that when you kill nother man, basically you will end up killing yourself. The ver-population problem will teach you that if you do not have a loving oncern for the environment in which you dwell, it will no longer sustain ou=97you will not be worthy of it. You will not be destroying the planet, ou see. You will not be destroying the birds or the flowers, or the grain r the animals. You will not be worthy of them, and they will be destroying ou. You have set up the problem for yourselves within the framework of your eference. You will not understand your part within the framework of nature ntil you actually see yourselves in danger of tearing it apart. You will ot destroy consciousness. You will not annihilate the consciousness of ven one leaf, but in your context, if the problem were not solved, these ould fade from your experience. The crisis is a kind of therapy, however. It is a teaching method that ou have set up for yourselves because you need it. And you need it now, efore your race embarks upon journeys to other physical realities. You ust learn your lessons now in your own backyard before you travel to other orlds. So you have brought this upon yourself for that purpose and you ill learn. -- ith kindest regards, 20 arry Carter=20 bcarter@igc.apc.org> lue Mountain Native Forest Alliance EB Page: http://www.triax.com/bmnfa/index.htm oice: 541-523-3357 ax: 541-523-9438 20 tupidity got us into this mess -- hy can't it get us out? +------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Science & Spirituality List : 460 members (public) http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/science-l.html Archive-password: devotion List-Operator: Dale Pond

See Also:

Source: