Seth’s Commentary on Priestley and Dunne

Seth Early Session, Vol 5, Session 218

Our friend Ruburt has finally discovered the works of Dunne, I see, and he has also been reading Priestley on the subject of time.

Ruburt has not been reading Dunne, incidentally, but Priestley's interpretation of Dunne, which is something else again, but fairly accurate.

I am glad that you did not encounter these ideas earlier, since we cannot therefore be justly accused of having borrowed any of them. Ruburt is amazed at some of the similarities that exist in the concept of time as I am giving it to you, and the concepts held by Dunne and Priestley.

… Now. Priestley is indeed the priestly fellow, and Dunne is far from done, if you will forgive my jest. Portions of both of their theories are correct.  Sometimes one of them is accurate on one point, and the other one completely off, and sometimes they are both wrong.

All in all however they came much closer to reality than most; and therefore there is an added dimension in their works. This added dimension is simply a result of their intimacy with other dimensions of time, about which most others remain as ignorant as possible.

… Priestley does not go far enough with his time one, time two and time three, but he is fairly correct up to that point. In a different way he says many of the things that I am saying. I have told you that upon physical death the ego becomes the subconscious in the next existence, and that its conscious knowledge is retained electromagnetically.

(Seth began dealing with these ideas in the very early sessions, mixing it in with reincarnational data. He elaborated to some degree in the sessions on the electrical field and related subjects: In Volume 3, see sessions 122-135.)

Now. Priestley puts it somewhat differently but the results are the same. According to him the consciousness, the individual consciousness of time one, becomes something else at physical death, and the consciousness that is part of time two in physical life becomes dominant in the next existence. There is one large difference here between us however, and I believe an important one. Priestley's individual, after death, with his dominant time two consciousness, has available to him what was time one during physical life.

He can use it, use the knowledge obtained therein, learn from its mistakes, and advance. But this individual as seen by Priestley at this particular point is somewhat limited, still, by this time one. Time one is available to him, though not necessarily as a series of moments, one after another. From this he is free, but he is still somewhat bound by those events, though he may learn from them. According to Priestley, while the individual therefore is free from successive moments, he still does not have easily available, at fingertips so to speak, any information or realizations from time three. I am using Priestley's terms here.

Time three, after the individual's physical death, becomes for him what time two is for him during this existence. It is therefore available only to the same degree that time two is available to him now.

Priestley's concept here becomes more limiting than he realized. At this point Dunne overtakes him precisely where he and Dunne disagree. For once having hypothesized times one, two and three, Dunne continues onward as is the case, and Priestley simply stops here in this particular respect.

I suggest a brief break, and we shall continue along these lines, for we are able to go ahead where Priestley and Dunne were not. We are able to do this, or I am able to do this, precisely because I am from beyond Priestley's time one, two and three, and therefore free of the distortions which even he is unable to avoid.

In concept, again on this particular point, Dunne went further. But in doing so he ended up in a frenzy, losing sight of where he was. And no wonder. It is simply because I am outside of these times that I can see through them more clearly, and there is no particular reason why I should be considered wiser in this respect than they. I am simply in a better position to observe. If Dunne were able to write another book now, on his time theories, he would be able to correct several of his well-intentioned errors.

… When the individual reaches Priestley's time three, then he is left with little individuality. Priestley's vision of the birds and the life spirit is not too much different from nirvana. At least only in degree, and this simply will not do.

It is true that Priestley speaks in terms of consciousness being retained at this stage, but a consciousness devoid of personality is an odd bird indeed. The personality structure changes, it is true, but consciousness of overall identities within any given unit of consciousness is always retained. There is no blending or merging, willy-nilly, into a gigantic ever-rushing-on spirit of life. And the spirit of life in these terms cannot be considered as something apart and separate from, and outside of, those consciousnesses which illuminate it, and through which they are illuminated. And here is our second difficulty with Priestley.

It is one thing to conceive of basic time as being outside of physical time, for the sake of making a point; but it must be realized that Priestley's time one, while only real to the ego, is nevertheless a part or a materialization that exists within this basic time framework, and the life force is at the same time within as well as without.

That is, the life force is constantly renewed by those consciousnesses of which it is formed. The consciousnesses therefore are not simply filled up by a life force which then deserts them to go on its way, for these consciousnesses are themselves portions of the life force, and form its shape, if you will, and continuing existence.

(Seth gave his first lengthy dissertation on the above theme in the 12th session, of January 2,1964. He places the subject under the general term of fifth dimension.  He spoke on the idea for several typewritten pages; this was his longest delivery by a wide margin at the time, and Jane and I were quite surprised. See Volume 1.)

The flame feeds the fire and the fire feeds the flame. Therefore, while this time one of continuous moments is no longer experienced after death, it is still a reality within basic time itself, a reality toward which the personality simply is no longer focused. Because the individual is focused within time one now, you still realize, or should, that the time one is only a small portion of time, and that other kinds of time exist of which you are not aware.

But when you leave time one behind, or because you leave time one behind at death, this is no reason to imagine that time one exists separate and apart from basic time. The same sort of error here exists concerning the life force, as I mentioned. You are merged with the life force now, and no one can deny that you are individualistic.

… It is a mistake to assume that any future or inevitable merging with a life force is ahead of you, in those terms. This is an error that is precisely due to that which Priestley himself abhors: distortions in thought caused by reliance upon the concept of time as a series of moments.

Priestley cannot help himself here, for it is not possible entirely for him to escape from his own time system, with the best of intentions. And in many respects his theories come very close to explaining the way things are. The idea of reoccurring time is simply off base, practically speaking.

… There are two particular points that I want to make this evening, if at all possible.

One concerns myself and where I would stand in this time framework, and you should find this highly interesting. The other has to do with Dunne, for in one instance he saw further than Priestley, for he carried these times further. But he also fell into an understandable error. For at some point the separate selves of Dunne's, with their separate times, become aware of each other, and merge into the sort of superconsciousness that we have always called the entity.

These times do not go on indefinitely in the precise manner that Dunne thought. Neither do they stop as Priestley believes, at time three. There is a merging of selves into what you may call a superconsciousness, a synthesis; and from then on, dear friends, there is a beginning toward something new, and a something of which I am not prepared to speak this evening, but of which I shall speak in the near future.

… (We would think in the last paragraph of his delivery above, Seth hinted at the psychic gestalts of which he has spoken very briefly at various times. We gather that he visualizes a chain of such gestalts, with each link one of greater complexity. He has called them "great building blocks of energy. ")

Having read Priestley's ideas about Dunne, Ruburt now wonders if I am not a future self of his own, according to Dunne's ideas; that is, if I am not one of those future selves of which Dunne speaks, or if l am not consciousness number two, or three even, of Priestley's concept.

Now. Such thoughts are excellent mental exercise for him, and while he is not precisely correct in either of these suppositions, in a basic manner I cannot say that he is precisely wrong.

Long before he read any notions such as these, I told you that I spoke through the third undifferentiated level of the subconscious, did I not?

("Yes."

(Jane was again smiling. Seth devoted the 88th session of September 16,1964, to explaining what he meant by this. He had mentioned it before at various times without elaboration. He also dwelled on the subject to some extent in the 152nd session, the 157th, and others. Again, reincarnation is involved in a basic way.)

Now. While Dunne and Priestley and myself used different terms often to express the same concept, we also differ in many respects as far as these theories are concerned. My third undifferentiated layer, you see, would correspond to the consciousness of Priestley's third time, which is why I can tell you that at that point individuality is indeed maintained, and personality continues.

Otherwise I should be all life force and no self. Now, I communicate through this level of Ruburt's consciousness. It is subconscious to him or to his ego, but it is not without consciousness by any means. And again, I communicate through that level. At my own level this is not in itself difficult.

The difficulty lies in making this communication, which is direct from me, to what would be Ruburt's time three self, clear to the time one self of Ruburt's, which must speak these words, in what could be called Priestley's time one.

Communications such as these, incidentally, can be explained quite adequately within Priestley's system. Very nicely indeed. Not thoroughly but nicely. Completely, if you do not ask too many tricky questions.

Priestley's theories, although he would not use them in this way, could be used to give some insight along these directions. But because Priestley stopped with time three, you would have to pick up Dunne’s, until Dunne himself finally goes wrong.

Now I would be number six self, so to speak, according to Dunne. According to Priestley however, at this point in his theory, I would simply be that life force, or part of it, with no individuality. Priestley is more correct in depth however, though Dunne goes further, only to peter out. Nevertheless I would he a number six self. Using the same terms, however, I will make some distinctions. For as a number six self I have complete knowledge of all the other selves.

Now I could indeed be Ruburt's number six self, you see. I am not, but I could be. It is entirely possible however, using Ruburt as an example, for Ruburt's number six self, to communicate with Ruburt's number one self; these communications sifting through the intervening selves however, and unfortunately. Now these various times of Priestley's and Dunne's have much in common with the planes of which I am speaking in our discussions, and the value fulfillment of our material is akin to Priestley's insistence on depth within any given moment.

I go into particulars however concerning how this depth is achieved, as you know, if you recall a diagram that I outlined for you concerning moment points in the past.

("Yes."

(Jane had looked at me for confirmation. See the 149-152nd sessions. Jane made the drawing referred to by Seth immediately after the 149th session. I have always intended to work up a finished drawing on the idea.)

Now. While I am not Ruburt’s number six self, and I should know, this is not to say that I may not be Ruburt's number eight or nine self.

At this point I am at the level, again, that could be compared to Dunne's number six self, as myself. I communicate through the third undifferentiated layer, that could be compared to Priestley's consciousness at number three time.

I repeat myself because I want to make the points plain, and this material is difficult. But things simply do not happen as Dunne supposed they did. He was correct in carrying his times further than Priestley, but he was incorrect in assuming the serialization continued indefinitely along the same lines.

His observations were not complete enough, for there are changes occurring now that he did not perceive. Therefore he did not project them into these other times. The becoming self grows more and more aware of its own portions, and of these various aspects of time in which these portions are or will be focused.

I do not believe that Dunne understood this. There is no serialization as he imagined, after a certain point, simply because this progression of selves through various times in a serial fashion is no longer necessary. The selves reach a point which is not a theoretical point, but a particular mathematically existent point, whereby these times and selves simply become one, or in our terms, an entity.

I must stress that individuality is never lost. But this is too complicated a subject to cover this evening. We have explained it rather adequately in terms of action however, and gestalts of selves do not imply a giving-up of individuality at all. It should be remembered here that reincarnation is simply a fact, and one which is not accepted by Priestley or Dunne.

Reincarnation, considered in this light however, is much more logical indeed than a reoccurring time. And incidentally it is also much more logically a part of these theories, although both Priestley and Dunne would be unable I believe to admit this.

Now. At some point you, Joseph, and Ruburt and myself, are part of the same entity. This entity is that synthesization that Dunne did not foresee, but it in no way implies a loss of individual identities. This is extremely difficult to explain, since when I use the word individual identity, I am not referring primarily to egotistical identity alone. As a matter of fact, I am in one way, and in one way only, a future self—this is extremely simplified—of Ruburt's; that could be compared I suppose to a theoretical number twelve self, according to Dunne.

But we three are all part of another entity, or rather of an entity that exists at that point where Dunne's serialization breaks down and a new synthesis takes place.

Now. In that respect I am closer to Ruburt than I am to you. However I have been connected with both of you in the past, and this is something for another night. And at that point of synthesization we will be part of the same entity.

This is all for the sake of simplicity—

(Here Jane laughed.)

—believe it or not. For we are actually, you see, part of the same entity now. Therefore, if you will bear with me, you represent one of the selves through which I must travel in order to communicate. Is this clear?

("Yes."

(Seth began explaining his source and the source of this material in the very early sessions. In the 15th session for example he likened his state to the dream state of a physical individual.  By the 24th session he was dealing with the problems involved in communicating with us. By the 63rd session he was explaining his state as energy not materialized into mass; this after telling us in the 54th session that Jane, Seth and I had been part of the same entity once; he could not tell us this earlier, he said, because Jane and I would have immediately jumped to the conclusion that he was part of Jane's subconscious mind.

(In the 45^th session Seth said a little to the effect that I assisted her in drawing upon the energy necessary for these communications. In the 88th and 152nd sessions Seth went into Jane's third undifferentiated layer to some extent, then elaborated a little more on the relationship between us in the 157th session.

… It is because of the peculiar connection of selves that our communications are possible. It is for the same reason that such communications are relatively rare, for many conditions and circumstances are necessary; and the number one self is made to bear strains unfamiliar to it, and to perceive data which does not make sense within its number one time system.

Because of this I have always leaned on the side of caution. But these strains, and this data, to some extent lift the number one self from the limitations of the number one time, and lends an advancement ordinarily not possible. For the number one time has changed for both of you since our sessions began, and it no longer seems the prison that it did earlier.

The number one time cannot contain other times but the consciousness, with help, can to some extent perceive these other times. And this perception then allows consciousness to escape some of the confinements of that one time. Our spacious present of which I have spoken contains all times, but it is not a thing apart from them, nor precisely their sum. It is ever unfolding and mobile, and changing itself.

(In the 44th session, Seth began a list of qualities and attributes which are included in the spacious present. To date there are eleven of these: Value climate of psychological reality; energy transformation; spontaneity; durability; creation; consciousness; capacity for infinite mobility; law of infinite changeability and transmutation; cooperation; arrival and departure, meaning physical birth and death; and quality depth, the perspective in which an idea can expand, replacing our time and space.)