Session 587

Seth Speaks, Session 587

The exterior religious dramas are of course imperfect representations of the ever-unfolding interior spiritual realities.  The various personages, the gods and prophets within religious history – these absorb the mass inner projections thrown out by those inhabiting a given time span.

Such religious dramas focus, direct, and, hopefully, clarify aspects of inner reality that need to be physically represented.  These do not only appear within your own system.  Many are also projected into other systems of reality.  Religion per se, however, is always the external façade of inner reality.  The primary spiritual existence alone gives meaning to the physical one.  In the most real terms, religion should include all of the pursuits of man in his search for the nature of meaning and truth.  Spirituality cannot be some isolated, specialized activity or characteristic.

Exterior religious dramas are important and valuable only to the extent that they faithfully reflect the nature of inner, private spiritual existence.  To the extent that a man feels that his religion expresses such inner experience, he will feel it valid.  Most religions per se, however, set up as permissible certain groups of experiences while denying others.  They limit themselves by applying the principles of the sacredness of life only to your own species, and often to highly limited groups within it.

At no time will any given church be able to express the inner experience of all individuals.  At no time will any church find itself in a position in which it can effectively curtail the inner experience of its members – it will only seem to do so.  The forbidden experiences will simply be unconsciously expressed, gather strength and vitality, and rise up to form a counter projection which will then form another, newer exterior religious drama.

The dramas themselves do express certain inner realities, and they serve as surface reminders to those who do not trust direct experience with the inner self.  They will take the symbols as reality.  When they discover that this is not so, they feel betrayed.  Christ spoke in terms of the father and son because in your terms, at that time, this was the method used – the story he told to explain the relationship between the inner self and the physically-alive individual.  No new religion really startles anyone, for the drama has already been played subjectively.

What I have said, of course, applies as much to Buddha as it does to Christ: Both accepted the inner projections and then tried to physically represent these.  They were more, however, than the sum of those projections.  This also should be understood.  Mohammedanism fell far short.  In this case the projections were of violence predominating.  Love and kinship were secondary to what indeed amounted to baptism and communion through violence and blood.

In these continuous exterior religious dramas, the Hebrews played a strange role.  Their idea of one god was not new to them.  Many ancient religions held the belief of one god above all others.  This god above all others was a far more lenient god, however, than the one the Hebrews followed.  Many tribes believed, quite rightly, in the inner spirit that pervades each living thing.  And they often referred to, say, the god in the tree, or the spirit in the flower.  But they also accepted the reality of an overall spirit, of which these lesser spirits were but a part.  All worked together harmoniously.

The Hebrews conceived of an overseer god, an angry and just and sometimes cruel god; and many sects denied, then, the idea that other living beings beside man possessed inner spirits.  The earlier beliefs represented a far better representation of inner reality, in which man, observing nature, let nature speak and reveal its secrets.

The Hebrew god, however, represented a projection of a far different kind.  Man was growing more and more aware of the ego, of a sense of power over nature, and many of the later miracles are presented in such a way that nature is forced to behave differently than in its usual mode.  God becomes man’s ally against nature.

The early Hebrew god became a symbol of man’s unleashed ego.  God behaved exactly as an enraged child would, had he those powers, sending thunder and lightning and fire against his enemies destroying them.  Man’s emerging ego therefore brought forth emotional and psychological problems and challenges.  The sense of separation from nature grew.  Nature became a tool to use against others.

Sometimes before the emergence of the Hebrew god these tendencies were apparent.  In many ancient, now-forgotten tribal religions, recourse was also made to the gods to turn nature against the enemy.  Before this time, however, man felt a part of nature, not separated from it.  It was regarded as an extension of his being, as he felt an extension of its reality.  One cannot use oneself as a weapon against oneself in those terms.

In those times men spoke and confided to the spirits of birds, trees, and spiders, knowing that in the interior reality beneath, the nature of these communications was known and understood.  In those times, death was not feared as it is in your terms, now, for the cycle of consciousness was understood.

Man desired in one way to step out of himself, out of the framework in which he had his psychological existence, to try new challenges, to step out of a mode of consciousness into another.  He wanted to study the process of his own consciousness.  In one way this meant a giant separation from the inner spontaneity that had given him both peace and security.  On the other hand, it offered a new creativity, in his terms.

At this point, the god inside became the god outside.

Man tried to form a new realm, attain a different kind of focus and awareness.  His consciousness turned a corner outside of itself.  To do this he concentrated less and less upon inner reality, and therefore began the process of inner reality only as it was projected outward into the physical world.

Before, the environment was effortlessly created and perceived by man and all other living things, knowing the nature of their inner unity.  In order to begin this new venture, it was necessary to pretend that this inner unity did not exist.  Otherwise the new kind of consciousness would always run back to its home for security and comfort.  So it seemed that all bridges must be cut, while of course it was only a game because the inner reality always remained.  The new kind of consciousness simply had to look away from it to maintain initially an independent focus.

I am speaking here in more or less historic terms for you.  You must realize that the process has nothing to do with time as you know it, however.  This particular kind of adventure in consciousness has occurred before, and in your terms will again.

Perception of the exterior universe then changed, however, and it seemed to be alien and apart from the individual who perceived it.

God, therefore, became an idea projected outward, independent of the individual, divorced from nature.  He became the reflection of man’s emerging ego, with all of its brilliance, savagery, power, and intent for mastery.  The adventure was a highly creative one despite the obvious disadvantages, and represented an “evolution” of consciousness that enriched man’s subjective experience, and indeed added to the dimensions of reality itself.

To be effectively organized, however, inner and outer experience had to appear as separate, disconnected events.  Historically the characteristics of God changed as man’s ego changed.  These characteristics of the ego, however, were supported by strong inner changes.

The original propulsion of inner characteristics outward into the formation of the ego could be compared with the birth of innumerable stars – an event of immeasurable consequences that originated on a subjective level and within inner reality.

The ego, having its birth from within, therefore, must always boast of its independence while maintaining the nagging certainty of its inner origin.

The ego feared for its position, frightened that it would dissolve back into the inner self from which it came.  Yet in its emergence it provided the inner self with a new kind of feedback, a different view not only of itself; but through this, the inner self was able to glimpse possibilities of development of which it had not previously been aware.  In your terms, by the time of Christ, the ego was sure enough of its position so that the projected picture of God could begin to change.

The inner self is in a state of constant growth.  The inner portion of each man, therefore, projected this knowledge outward.  The need, the psychological and spiritual need of the species, demanded both interior and exterior alterations of great import.  Qualities of mercy and understanding that had been buried could now surface.  Not only privately but en masse they surged up, adding a new impetus and giving a natural “new” direction – beginning to call all portions of the self, as it knew itself, together.

So the concept of God began to change as the ego recognized its reliance upon inner reality, but the drama had to be worked out within the current framework.  Mohammedanism was basically so violent precisely because Christianity was basically so gentle.  Not the Christianity was not mixed with violence, or that Mohammedanism was devoid of love.  But as the psyche went through its developments and battled with itself, denying some feelings and characteristics and stressing others, so the historic religious exterior dramas represented and followed these inner aspirations, struggles, and searches.

All of this material now given must be considered along with the fact that beneath these developments there are the eternal aspects and creative characteristics of a force that is both undeniable and intimate.  All That Is, in other words, represents the reality from which all of us spring.  All That Is, by its nature, transcends all dimensions of activity, consciousness, or reality, while being a part of each.

Behind all faces there is one face, yet this does not mean that each man’s face is not his own.  The further religious drama of which I have spoken, in your terms still to come, represents another stage in both the internal and external dramas in which the emergent ego becomes aware of much of its heritage.  While maintaining its own status, it will be able to have much greater commerce with other portions of the self, and also to offer to the inner self opportunities of awareness that the inner self on its own could not procure.

The journeys of the gods, therefore, represent the journeys of man’s own consciousness projected outward.  All That Is, however, is within each such adventure.  It consciousness, and its reality, is within each man, and within the gods he has created.  That last is in small letters, and gods shall always be in small letters.  All That Is is capitalized.

The gods attain, of course, a psychic reality.  I am not saying therefore that they are not real, but I am to some extent defining the nature of their reality.  It is to some extent true to say: “Be careful of the gods you choose, for you will reinforce each other.”

Such an alliance sets up certain fields of attraction.  A man who attaches himself to one of the gods is necessarily attaching himself largely to his own projections.  Some, in your terms, are creative, and some destructive, though the latter are seldom recognized as such.

The open concept of All That Is, however, frees you to a great extent from your own projections, and allows a more valid contact with the spirit that is behind the reality that you know.

In this chapter I would also like to mention several other pertinent points.

Some ancient tales have come down through the centuries that tell of various gods and demons who guard the gates, so to speak, of other levels of reality and stages of consciousness.  Astral levels are neatly laid out, numbered, and categorized.

There are tests to pass before entry.  There are rituals to be acted out.  Now, all of this is highly distorted.  Any attempt to rigorously and precisely express inner reality is bound to be abortive, highly misleading, and in your terms sometimes dangerous; for you do create your own reality and live it according to your inner beliefs.  Therefore, be careful also of those beliefs that you accept.

Let me take this moment to state again that there are no devils or demons, except as you create them out of your belief.  As mentioned earlier, good and evil effects are basically illusions.  In your terms all acts, regardless of their seeming nature, are a part of a greater good.  I am not saying that a good end justifies what you would consider an evil action.  While you still accept the effects of good and evil, then you had better choose the good.

They represent, however, deep unities that you do not understand.  Your conception of good and evil results in large part from the kind of consciousness you have presently adopted.  You do not perceive wholes, but portions.  The conscious mind focuses with a quick, limited, but intense light, perceiving from a given field of reality only certain “stimuli”.  It then puts these stimuli together, forming the liaison of similarity.  Anything that id does not accept as a portion of reality, it does not perceive.

The effect of opposites results, then, from a lack of perception.  Since you must operate within the world as you perceive it, then the opposites will appear to be conditions of existence.  These elements have been isolated for a certain reason, however.  You are being taught, and you are teaching yourselves to handle energy, to become conscious cocreators with All That Is, and one of the “stages of development” or learning processes includes dealing with opposites as realities.

In your terms, the ideas of good and evil help you recognize the sacredness of existence, the responsibility of consciousness.  The ideas of opposites also are necessary guide lines for the developing ego.  The inner self knows quite well the unity that exists.