Seth Speaks Newsletter — Vol. XXIII

August 4th, 2006 by SethD8 Leave a reply »
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Seth Speaks Newsletter

Seth Speaks

Volume XXIII

River­being 1 by Tracy Marshall

 

In This Abre­via­ted Blog Issue XXIII:

Sep­tem­ber 11th Fore­told by Susan M. Wat­kins

Seth — “An Inte­gral Cons­cious Crea­tion Myth” Part 12 of 15 by Paul Helfrich

for full ver­sion goto: http://​www​.cafe​muse​.com/​s​e​t​h​n​e​t​/​j​o​u​r​n​al/



Sep­tem­ber 11th Fore­told
by Susan M. Wat­kins
Since Sep­tem­ber 11, each of us has had to find a way to recon­nect with the world in something like the old rou­ti­nes and phi­lo­sophies that com­pri­sed our indi­vi­dual pers­pec­ti­ves before those pro­foundly shoc­king events took place. Any sort of belief that our rea­lity might ori­gi­nate from within has not pro­vi­ded an espe­cially com­for­ta­ble cushion. In fact, such ideas are often unsett­ling and not infre­quently mad­de­ning, since they ine­vi­tably lead to ques­tions about uncons­cious know­ledge and intent. As in: What inner focus led each of us—every one of us in this rea­lity, whe­re­ver we might live and howe­ver imme­dia­tely or not we were involved—to expe­rience this lite­ral explo­sion of tra­gedy and social uphea­val that see­med to come upon us all without war­ning? What collec­tive pur­pose does this repre­sent? Over time I’ve begun to form my own thoughts about such ques­tions, and within that fra­me­work, what is par­ti­cu­larly inte­res­ting to me is the appa­rent fact that, howe­ver horri­fic and appa­lling all this has been, the one thing it was not was “unk­nown.” Just on the out­ward level of appa­rent hap­pens­tance, there were dozens of sto­ries rising out of Sep­tem­ber 11 about peo­ple who lived or died by making last-​​minute chan­ges of plans, either cons­ciously (in deci­ding to take an ear­lier or later flight, or to go into work later than usual, or not at all) or “un“consciously (as with the fellow who fell asleep on the sub­way for the first time ever and thus mis­sed his mor­ning stop under the World Trade Cen­ter). Disas­ters like this (and indeed all events), whether small and per­so­nal or huge and uni­ver­sal, are always surroun­ded by these tales (the finan­cier George Van­der­bilt can­ce­led his plans at the last minute to sail on the Tita­nic because his mother had a “bad fee­ling” about it), and they are fas­ci­na­ting and worthy of record and study in them­sel­ves. Inner kno­wing and res­ponse to that kno­wing is the gel that com­pri­ses expe­rience, after all.

Just as intri­guing is the kind of pre­cog­ni­tion that comes in the form of dreams and dream-​​like corre­la­tions. As I dis­co­ve­red some years ago when I did the research for a book about dreams in a small town, such pres­cience, when it hap­pens, rarely gives a com­plete pic­ture or an expli­cit war­ning. Ins­tead, it tends to pro­vide glimp­ses of the thing to come, as if tai­lo­red to your per­so­nal need-​​to-​​know fac­tor. Moreo­ver, these “glimp­ses” seem to keep giving out bits of infor­ma­tion after the fact, in something like an awareness/​response cool-​​down mode.

I have some exam­ples of pre– and post-​​cognitive dreams about Sep­tem­ber 11. My own occu­rred Sep­tem­ber 8 or 9, the Fri­day or Satur­day night before. Uncha­rac­te­ris­ti­cally, I didn’t write it down (since wri­ting makes things more real for me, maybe this was a subli­mi­nal defense mecha­nism). It was in vivid color and per­fectly clear, though con­fu­sed. I was trying to make my way down through piles of fiery rub­ble to get to the depths of hell to res­cue a friend—someone who in fact had died some years ago. Why this friend should be in hell, spe­ci­fi­cally the last circle of hell as in Dante’s Inferno, I didn’t know, but it was up to me to find him and lead him out of there. Along the way, through dark-​​fire mazes of rocks and twis­ted buil­ding gir­ders, I kept mee­ting other peo­ple clam­be­ring through the ruins, but nobody would give me any direc­tions or help me in any way. I craw­led and stum­bled on and on, lower and lower, and the noise and con­fu­sion got worse and worse—until I woke up, unsure if I’d found my friend. Had I glimp­sed him down there, at the bot­tom of hell, or not? Had I fai­led, and left him behind? For seve­ral moments, I was diso­rien­ted and heartsick.


But as I came awake I also thought of The 13th Warrior, the Anto­nio Ban­de­ras movie I’d seen for the first time the pre­vious eve­ning. It’s a rete­lling of the Beo­wulf story, and in it, Ban­de­ras and his North­men com­pa­nions go deep into a cave to root out the lea­ders of the mys­te­rious inva­ders that have been terro­ri­zing nearby villa­ges. The under­ground sce­nes are vivid, and lit by fire, so as I came to, I figu­red this must be the source of my dream’s storyline.

Not until after the WTC attacks and sub­se­quent events did I con­nect my dream with the sce­nes of res­cue wor­kers dig­ging through the fiery ruins, and for that mat­ter with the asso­cia­tive ele­ment of the North­men searching out the enemy in his cave, the same words and ima­gery used by US offi­cials in post-​​September 11 mili­tary res­ponse. It’s also inte­res­ting that in The 13th Warrior, Banderas’s cha­rac­ter is an Arab, a heroic figure who helps defeat the adver­sary and lives to record the tale. But why, I won­de­red, was this par­ti­cu­lar friend of mine the object of my dream-​​search? Other friends had pas­sed away in recent years; why him?

It wasn’t until later that week, when I was on the phone with Moment Point Press edi­tor Susan Ray, com­pa­ring dream-​​notes, that the con­nec­tion came to me. Thun­ders­truck, I rea­li­zed that my dead friend’s birth­day was on Sep­tem­ber 11! Which see­med like a whop­per of a hint of events to come—certainly it’s a whop­per piece of hindsight—but nothing com­pa­red with the dream that Susan rela­ted to me:

“Mathew [my hus­band] and I are sit­ting at an out­door cafe in a wharf-​​like area. It has a mili­tary look about it, and it’s in a city—lots of conc­rete. Mathew lea­ves to do an errand at a govern­ment– or insurance-​​type office and soon the sky over my head is filled with huge, black pla­nes. They’re flying very low, very slowly, and I’m filled with dread. But nobody else seems to be paying attention.

“I look to a nearby table and see an older gent­le­man sit­ting alone. I know tele­pathi­cally that he’s been through WWII, so I watch to see his reac­tion to the pla­nes. He whis­pers, “Oh, Shit,” with a tone that matches the dread I’m fee­ling. So I imme­dia­tely get up to look for Mathew. And in the near dis­tance, in the direc­tion the pla­nes are flying, I can see and hear explo­sions. Still, no one seems to be paying attention.

“I spend the rest of the dream fran­ti­cally searching for Mathew, while all around me peo­ple are igno­ring what’s hap­pe­ning. Ever­yone has this mad­de­ning don’t-bother-me-I’ve-got-work-to-do atti­tude as I ask them for help. As the dream ends I spot Mathew, back at the table where we star­ted, loo­king for me.

“That morning—Sunday, Sep­tem­ber 9—I recoun­ted the dream, in detail, to Mathew. We came to the conc­lu­sion that it was a stress dream. But that didn’t ring true to me. I wasn’t par­ti­cu­larly stres­sed and the dream had had an epic feel to it. Two days later, Sep­tem­ber 11, Mathew called from work (a cor­po­rate office buil­ding outside of Bos­ton) and said, “Turn on the TV; you won’t believe what’s happening.”

Note the coin­ci­den­tal ele­ments in Susan’s dream and mine of trying to find someone in the midst of a spe­ci­fic kind of chaos, the ulti­mate night­mare sce­na­rio to come out of those sce­nes of wrec­kage and horror—at least for those on the ground. James, an email corres­pon­dent who lives in England, seems to have pic­ked up on the plight of those in the air. As often hap­pens with pre­cog­ni­tion, his dream, on the night of Sep­tem­ber 10, has roots in another, coin­ci­den­tal incident—in his case, a tele­vi­sion pro­gram he had watched that same eve­ning, a fire figh­ting docu­men­tary on a UK Dis­co­very chan­nel. In much the same way as my watching The 13th Warrior, ele­ments of his UK pro­gram mer­ged in a com­pe­lling clair­vo­yant blend of dream and event. “The show fea­tu­red a giant towe­ring inferno that had hap­pe­ned in Phi­la­delphia some years ago,” James wrote. “The out­come of it in some ways was like another ver­sion of the WTC disas­ter. The pic­tu­res of the burnt out and collap­sed Phi­la­delphia skysc­ra­per were the last thing I saw before I went to sleep.

“During my dream that night, I had the sen­sa­tion of flying on a plane (not as a pas­sen­ger but from an all-​​angle van­tage point) that was cer­tainly on a rocky flight path with emer­gency ligh­ting on—golden brown dif­fu­sed light you might get from bur­ning embers.” The next day, he switched on his radio just in time to hear an announ­cer report the first plane hit­ting the WTC. And, of course, he watched the rest of it unfold on TV—almost as if offi­cial news itself were part of an ongoing prescience.

James also said that for days before Sep­tem­ber 11, he’d been suf­fu­sed with “a gene­ral fee­ling of gloom and demo­li­tion,” as he put it, “as I used to get when an IRA bomb or threat was immi­nent here in Lon­don.” Rea­ding this email, I remem­be­red a sen­tence that had been pla­ying over and over in my mind for weeks; I’d thought it was the ope­ning of an onco­ming novel (which it might be any­way). “Later,” the sen­tence dro­ned, “it was remem­be­red how clear the sky had been on that last autumn day of the old world.” After Sep­tem­ber 11, various news out­lets, inc­lu­ding The New Yor­ker, desc­ri­bed that day in almost exactly the same words.

Since then, after­math dreams and rever­be­ra­tions have been spi­lling over, not sur­pri­singly. Friends have been emai­ling me dreams filled with panic and guilt, though hope­ful reso­lu­tion has begun to show through, too. One per­son saw a por­tion of her­self split off to become a second and sepa­rate entity that had sup­po­sedly been mur­de­red, yet this self wasn’t quite dead and wasn’t quite human, either. Another friend, who is ardently oppo­sed to this country’s mili­tary cam­paign, drea­med of being put to death in an elec­tric chair that was a mini-​​nuclear device; the con­dem­ned, who were dis­si­dents, had to set off the devi­ces them­sel­ves. Yet the moment of death was only a sud­den, pain­less sen­sa­tion of rapidly floa­ting up to the cei­ling, “like we’re on our way somewhere,” he said. Reas­su­rance from the psyche? Still another friend drea­med of cha­llen­ging Jesus and Muham­mad to show up and fight it out bet­ween them. But the cha­llenge was a no-​​show; thus, no con­fron­ta­tion came about.

Which is, one would most sin­ce­rely hope, the most accu­rate pre­cog­ni­tion of all.



Susan M. Wat­kins is a for­mer news­pa­per repor­ter, fea­ture wri­ter, and colum­nist, and has also wor­ked in radio news. She is the author of *Con­ver­sa­tions with Seth* and *Spea­king of Jane Roberts: Remem­be­ring the Author of the Seth Mate­rial*, published by a Moment Point Press, as well as books and fic­tion in other gen­res.


©2002, Susan M. Wat­kins. All Rights Reser­ved. Prin­ted in the Cons­cious Crea­tion Journal.



Seth — “An Inte­gral Cons­cious Crea­tion Myth” Part 12 of 15
by Paul Hel­frich
Paul’s Note:

Thus far, Parts 111 explo­red the first five chap­ters of Jane Roberts’ Dreams, “Evo­lu­tion, and Value Ful­fill­ment, Vol. 1. Hope­fully you’ve noti­ced the inc­lu­sion of non-​​Sethian con­cepts and won­de­red how they fit in or where they come from. Parts 1215 pro­vide those ans­wers and more. As many of you know, I no lon­ger feel that the “Seth-​​in-​​a-​​vacuum” approach works in terms of ade­quate exe­ge­sis (inter­pre­ta­tion). In other words, just har­ping on “Seth said” gets very cir­cu­lar and insu­lar at best, and at worst, opens the door to dis­tor­tions never inten­ded by Seth, Jane, or Rob.

The­re­fore, if the Seth mate­rial is ever to “take its place along­side” the Wes­tern world’s major phi­lo­sophi­cal works as Seth sug­ges­ted it might, then it needs to be unders­tood within an his­to­ri­cal view that shows what’s old and what’s new, not just what’s trendy today.

To remedy this, I have begun to explore Ken Wilber’s inte­gral approach, which inc­lu­des a com­pa­ri­son of the Seth mate­rial with the world’s eso­te­ric, trans­for­ma­tive tra­di­tions (all the major reli­gions have one, but they are buried under the cal­ci­fied weight of exo­te­ric, trans­la­tive front ends that no lon­ger deal with the founder’s trail­bla­zing per­so­nal realizations).

My goal, then, is to show just how Seth’s maps fit in with those that come before, because if various eso­te­ric map­ma­kers have been in the ball­park over the past 2,500 years, then Seth should be in very good com­pany. Remem­ber, I’m not tal­king about cal­ci­fied exo­te­ric dis­tor­tions, many which Seth cri­ti­ci­zes in the mate­rial. I’m tal­king about the eso­te­ric core, the gnos­tic inner core that always points to per­so­nal trans­for­ma­tion and remem­brance of Source. All authen­tic eso­te­ric tra­di­tions bear remar­ka­ble simi­la­ri­ties, even with the vaga­ries of ever-​​changing cul­tu­ral bag­gage (pre­mo­dern, modern, and post­mo­dern worldviews).

Seen in this light, then, I hope to show that there is something old and new in the Seth mate­rial. Old in the sense of peren­nial wis­dom that attempts to express itself within every his­to­ri­cal epoch through reve­la­tion, ins­pi­ra­tion, and remem­brance. And new in the sense that being just over forty years old, the Seth mate­rial exists in a post­mo­dern guise pro­du­ced within the world’s grea­test democ­racy (warts and all) to date. So it is colo­red by these factors.

Addi­tio­nal Thoughts

So there you have it, a sum­mary of the first five chap­ters of Dreams, “Evo­lu­tion,” and Value Ful­fill­ment, Vol. 1, where Seth chro­nic­les the emer­gence of all of cons­cious­ness – inc­lu­ding Us! – into phy­si­cal energy-​​matter from a Cau­sal Source he calls All-​​That-​​Is.

The crea­tion of the world and everything in it… hmmm, I can just hear come­dian Bill Murray in his best Caddy Shack cha­rac­ter voice saying, “this is truly a Cin­de­re­lla story, a little bundle of energy named All-​​That-​​Is dreams of beco­ming entire uni­ver­ses and then everything in them, from cheese wiz to cheese cloth, cater­pi­llars to camels, car­pen­ters to che­mists, and in a blin­ding flash of ins­pi­ra­tion sinks a cos­mic 600 billion foot putt that bursts forth to create everything inc­lu­ding you and me.”

But seriously, if we unders­tand that everything – all energy-​​matter and space-​​time – is an expres­sion of cons­cious­ness, all lovingly fue­led by a Cau­sal Source, then Seth’s crea­tion myth pro­vi­des a post­mo­dern tapestry in which to bet­ter unders­tand the com­ple­xi­ties of rea­lity crea­tion in a way that pre­mo­dern reli­gious and modern scien­ti­fic myths do not. As we have briefly seen, Seth wove his story within a cos­mo­logy that includes:

  • All-​​That-​​Is/​consciousness units (CUs/​causal field)
  • sleepwalkers/​electromagnetic energy units (EEs/​subtle field)
  • Fra­me­works 4, 3, 2 (subtle field)
  • the dream state (subtle field) func­tions as a “lan­guage of trans­la­tion” for the waking state (phy­si­cal field)
  • Fra­me­work 1 (phy­si­cal field)
  • the para­do­xi­cal “before the beginning”
  • fami­lies of cons­cious­ness (innate intention)
  • the mul­ti­di­men­sio­nal psyche (outer ego, sub­cons­cious, inner ego)
  • the inner sen­ses (deep intuitions/​translogical hyperception)
  • rein­car­na­tion in the con­text of simul­ta­neous time frameworks
  • pro­ba­bi­li­ties

In clo­sing, then, let’s take a further look at the key con­cepts in Seth’s crea­tion myth: dreams, evo­lu­tion, and value ful­fill­ment. Notice that each one cen­ters on either the phy­si­cal, subtle, or cau­sal fields. For ins­tance, dreams focus on the subtle, evo­lu­tion on the phy­si­cal, and value ful­fill­ment on the cau­sal. Thus, Seth even used the book’s title to point out key involutionary/​evolutionary for­ces at work in the ongoing crea­tion of our uni­verse. Howe­ver, to make the flow smoother, the order in this clo­sing sec­tion has been chan­ged to evo­lu­tion (phy­si­cal), dreams (subtle), and value ful­fill­ment (causal).

On Evo­lu­tion (Phy­si­cal Field)

“Mat­ter, which appears to be merely pas­sive and without form and arran­ge­ment, has even in its sim­plest state an urge to fashion itself by a natu­ral evo­lu­tion into a more per­fect cons­ti­tu­tion.” ~ Imma­nuel Kant

It is inte­res­ting that Seth’s crea­tion myth bears a remar­ka­ble simi­la­rity to other crea­tion myths from around the world. Though they are beyond the scope of this essay, one myth in par­ti­cu­lar, the Abo­ri­gi­nal myth of the alche­ringa or the “dream­time” as English researcher Frank Gillen coi­ned it in 1896, bears a clo­ser look. It maps clo­sely to the essen­tial nature of what Seth desc­ri­bes in the ope­ning chap­ters of Dreams, “Evo­lu­tion,” and Value Fulfillment.

Accor­ding to this Abo­ri­gi­nal crea­tion myth, time emer­ged from a time­less realm, super­na­tu­ral beings crea­ted the world and then fell into an exhaus­ted “slum­ber” beco­ming the very parts of the earth itSelf – oceans, forests, lakes, moun­tains, and sky. These super­na­tu­ral beings seem remar­kably simi­lar to Seth’s sleep­wal­kers – those early enti­ties “in trance” who for­med the pla­net, its geo­graphy, and ecosystem.

In the Abo­ri­gi­nal myth, the action of drea­ming plays a cen­tral role in the crea­tion. Accor­ding to phy­si­cist Fred Alan Wolf (b.1934):

“As new as the Dream­time con­cept of this rea­lity may appear to us, Aus­tra­lian Abo­ri­gi­nes claim to have ‘memory’ of this realm dating back nearly 150,000 years. From this realm, a long time ago, the world of mind, mat­ter, and energy arose as a dream of the ‘Great Spi­rit.’ Thus Abo­ri­gi­nal thin­king sug­gests that the uni­verse or God is itself drea­ming into exis­tence all of what we expe­rience.” (17)

“The dream­time came to an end when the super­na­tu­ral beings left the sur­face of the earth. But the mythi­cal past was not lost fore­ver; on the con­trary, it is perio­di­cally reco­ve­red through the tri­bal rituals.

“When all these earth-​​born super­na­tu­ral beings had accom­plished their labors and com­ple­ted their wan­de­rings, over­po­we­ring wea­ri­ness fell upon them. The work that they had per­for­med had taxed their strength to the utmost, thus they sank back into their ori­gi­nal slum­be­ring state and their bodies either vanished into the ground – often at the site where they had first emer­ged – or tur­ned into rocks, trees, or sac­red objects.” (18)

Sounds fami­liar doesn’t it?

The modern belief sys­tem of evo­lu­tion – the linear deve­lop­ment from “lower” to “higher” life forms based upon the ran­dom, UNcons­cious prin­ci­ples of natu­ral selec­tion and gene­tic muta­tion – is an ina­de­quate model to explain the drea­ming nature of the subtle field, and the pro­ge­ni­tor nature of the cau­sal field. And this is not to disc­re­dit the bri­lliant insights of Char­les Dar­win, who dealt pri­ma­rily with biosphe­ric evo­lu­tion, not phy­siosphe­ric or noosphe­ric, but only to sug­gest that a post­mo­dern theory is requi­red to inte­grate Cau­sal Cons­cious­ness back into the story. And Seth’s cons­cious crea­tion myth clearly sup­ports that.

Now, let’s take a brief look back in time, to cos­mo­lo­gies in Wes­tern his­tory that have been oversha­do­wed due to a variety of poli­ti­cal, scien­ti­fic, and reli­gious rea­sons to get a sense of where the belief sys­tem of evo­lu­tion came from. Up until the six­teenth cen­tury, the con­sen­sus view dating back to Aris­totle in the fourth cen­tury B.C. had the earth at the epi­cen­ter of God’s divine domain. Then, modern Polish astro­no­mer Nico­las Coper­ni­cus came along and scan­da­li­zed the pre­mo­dern reli­gious ruling class by sho­wing that the earth was not the cen­ter of the uni­verse, that it actually revol­ved around the sun. And later that century:

“A gene­ra­tion after Coper­ni­cus, Gior­dano Bruno (15481600) dealt a poten­tially fatal blow to the crum­bling Aris­to­te­lian cos­mo­logy by dec­la­ring that not even the Sun was at the cen­ter of the uni­verse – there is no cen­ter, he said. The uni­verse is acen­tric – infi­nite in space and in time. In Bruno’s cos­mo­logy, there was no crea­tion – mytho­lo­gi­cal, theo­lo­gi­cal, or scien­ti­fic. The uni­verse was eter­nal; mat­ter was co-​​eternal with god. In fact, the uni­verse of mat­ter was god because mat­ter itself was inte­lli­gent. Whe­reas Coper­ni­cus sur­vi­ved the Holy Inqui­si­tion by kee­ping quiet about his ideas until the year of his death, Bruno, much more auda­cious and pro­vo­ca­tive, paid for his ‘sins’ [of cha­llen­ging the autho­rity of Aris­totle and the Church] by being bur­ned alive at the stake in 1600.” (19)

It wasn’t long after that Isaac New­ton (16421727), a modern mathe­ma­ti­cian and scien­tist, for­mu­la­ted his theo­ries based upon the belief that the uni­verse was a vast machine set into motion by a God quite sepa­rate and outside of the phy­si­cal field. Underl­ying laws could be known once the gover­ning prin­ci­ples were dis­cer­ned. In essence, New­ton belie­ved that phy­si­cal rea­lity could be unders­tood via scien­ti­fic inquiry and rea­son. Many others con­tri­bu­ted and expan­ded this new view of the uni­verse for seve­ral cen­tu­ries lea­ding up to Char­les Dar­win (18091882) and his theo­ries on evo­lu­tion, first published in The Ori­gin of Spe­cies by Means of Natu­ral Selec­tion, or the Pre­ser­va­tion of Favou­red Races in the Strug­gle for Life in 1859.

Though Dar­win did not believe that all mat­ter and energy was cons­cious in some form, there were other thin­kers, notably mathe­ma­ti­cian and phi­lo­sopher Alfred North Whi­tehead (18611947) who did. In his later years he out­li­ned a phi­lo­sophy called Pro­cess Thought that pro­po­sed that all energy-​​matter had some kind of expe­rience. It all depen­ded on pers­pec­ti­ves. Thus, he exten­ded expe­rience and pers­pec­ti­ves all the way down to the ato­mic. He recog­ni­zed that, con­trary to the popu­lar New­to­nian view the uni­verse is one big machine, the Whole was always grea­ter than the sum of its parts.

In the twen­tieth cen­tury, phy­si­cist David Bohm (19171991), a stu­dent of Einstein’s, sus­pec­ted the exis­tence of hid­den source fields from which the phy­si­cal springs. He for­mu­la­ted something simi­lar to Seth’s fra­me­works of cons­cious­ness. What Seth terms Fra­me­work 1 Bohm terms the expli­cate order, Fra­me­work 2 is the impli­cate order. Bohm iden­ti­fied what he called quan­tum poten­tial that phy­si­cists still have not pro­ved or dis­pro­ved to this day.

Evo­lu­tio­nary theo­rist Ervin Laszlo (b.1932) con­ti­nues to explore the limits of the phy­si­cal field and scien­ti­fi­cally prove the exis­tence of hid­den source fields. In Science and the Akashic Field: An Inte­gral Theory of Everything (2004) Laszlo inte­gra­tes cos­mo­logy, quan­tum phy­sics, bio­logy, and cons­cious­ness research. There is even a men­tion of Jane Roberts and Seth in the sec­tion on cons­cious­ness research (on p. 95). Bohm, Laszlo, and many like them are proof that post­mo­dern scien­tists are wor­king to extend science beyond the limits of pre­mo­dern and modern theories.

Howe­ver, we still have a long way to go before we scien­ti­fi­cally unders­tand the mecha­nics of Seth’s cons­cious crea­tion myth and its CUs, EEs, and quan­tum fields. The para­dox of time and no-​​time fields, and All-​​That-​​Is as invo­lu­tio­nary Ground and evo­lu­tio­nary Goal still vexes modern and post­mo­dern evo­lu­tio­nary theory. Trea­ted by the modern mains­tream as though it were a fact, evo­lu­tion, natu­ral selec­tion, and gene­tic muta­tion are wiel­ded as the cal­ci­fied dogma of scien­tism, not science, when pro­po­nents don’t pro­vide ade­quate expla­na­tions for how cons­cious­ness exists beyond a mere epiphe­no­me­non of the brain. Again, Cons­cious­ness des­pe­ra­tely seeks to find its way back into the post­mo­dern world.

Ken Wil­ber (b.1949) is a post­mo­dern psycho­lo­gist and phi­lo­sopher who has wor­ked on a theory of cons­cious­ness for over thirty years. In Sex, Eco­logy, and Spi­ri­tua­lity (1995) he for­mu­la­ted what he calls an inte­gral theory of cons­cious­ness that high­lights four simul­ta­neous pers­pec­ti­ves, none of which can be redu­ced to the other. These qua­drants exist in our awa­re­ness right now:

  1. Outer (objec­tive) /​ sin­gu­lar (indi­vi­dual) /​ It /​ beha­vio­ral in rela­tion to…
  2. Inner (sub­jec­tive) /​ sin­gu­lar (indi­vi­dual) /​ I /​ inten­tio­nal in rela­tion to…
  3. Inner (sub­jec­tive) /​ plu­ral (collec­tive) /​ We /​ cul­tu­ral in rela­tion to…
  4. Outer (objec­tive) /​ plu­ral (collec­tive) /​ Its /​ social

Each qua­drant, then, sha­res an evo­lu­tio­nary axis from rela­ti­vely “lower” to “higher” deve­lop­ment that inc­lu­des gems from Darwin’s theory; for exam­ple, the rep­ti­lian brain stem is a “lower” form of the mam­ma­lian brain. It also fea­tu­res impor­tant first per­son pers­pec­ti­ves mis­sing from modern, reduc­tio­nist empi­ri­cism. Thus, Wil­ber greatly expands upon pro­ble­ma­tic areas like the exc­lu­sion of sub­jec­tive expe­rience and its rela­tionship to objec­tive expe­rience (inter­sub­jec­ti­vity, inte­rob­jec­ti­vity). He shows that,

“…cons­cious­ness actually exists dis­tri­bu­ted across all four qua­drants with all of their various levels and dimen­sions. There is no one qua­drant (and cer­tainly no one level) to which we can point and say, There is cons­cious­ness. Cons­cious­ness is in no way loca­li­zed in that fashion. …It is true that the Upper Left qua­drant [i.e., inner (sub­jec­tive) /​ sin­gu­lar /​ I] is the locus of cons­cious­ness as it appears in an indi­vi­dual, but that’s the point: as it appears in an indi­vi­dual. Yet cons­cious­ness on the whole is ancho­red in, and dis­tri­bu­ted across, all of the qua­drants – inten­tio­nal, beha­vio­ral, cul­tu­ral, and social. If you ‘erase’ any qua­drant, they all disap­pear, because each is intrin­si­cally neces­sary for the exis­tence of the others.” (20)

The key to the qua­drants, then, is that they pre­vent reduc­tio­nism and pro­mote inte­gra­lism. That is, on the one hand modern science redu­ces all sub­jec­tive, inner pers­pec­ti­ves to things, its, and pro­ces­ses. Even the so-​​called holis­tic web of life sys­tems theory omits inte­riors! On the other hand, extreme forms of cer­tain post­mo­dern theo­ries, such as New Age idea­lism and panpsychism, reduce everything to inte­riors. The inte­gral impulse simply situa­tes both inte­riors and exte­riors, indi­vi­dual and collec­tive dimen­sions to serve as a check and balance against going to extremes.

Moreo­ver, the latest ver­sion (Wilber-​​5) inte­gra­tes phy­si­cal, subtle, and cau­sal fields, and offers exten­sive cross-​​cultural evi­dence for their exis­tence. Thus, a more balan­ced and com­prehen­sive metho­do­logy beco­mes a sine qua non. While there are many issues to be wor­ked out in the deca­des ahead, this is the most com­prehen­sive post­mo­dern theory of cons­cious­ness to date, one that moves far beyond the modern Dar­wi­nian model because it inc­lu­des cons­cious­ness and Consciousness.

Involution/​Evolution

Accor­ding to the gems of various pre­mo­dern tra­di­tions, the pri­mary para­dox of All-​​That-​​Is just this: It is simul­ta­neously both Ground and Goal, Desig­ner and Desig­ned, Unborn and Born, Trans­cen­dent and Imma­nent. The pre­mo­dern tra­di­tions rightly claim this para­dox can only be unra­ve­led, fully disc­lo­sed, and directly rea­li­zed through medi­ta­tion and what Seth calls inner sen­ses. Ear­lier, we sum­ma­ri­zed this pri­mal para­dox as follows:

All-​​That-​​Is eter­nally “for­gets” (invo­lu­tion) and “remem­bers” (evo­lu­tion) ItSelf in infi­nite varia­tions through a “grid of per­cep­tion” (phy­si­cal, subtle, and cau­sal fields).

Ken Wil­ber, who has done exten­sive cross-​​cultural research on the pre­mo­dern tra­di­tions, explains it this way:

“Invo­lu­tion also means ‘to get invol­ved, entan­gled, enmeshed.’ And using the term this way, it is best to speak of invo­lu­tion as Spirit’s [All-​​That-​​Is’] ‘des­cen­ding into’ and get­ting ‘lost’ in or ‘entan­gled’ in the mani­fest world. In invo­lu­tion, Spi­rit goes out of Itself, alie­na­tes Itself, crea­tes a mani­fest world of other­ness and many­ness, and beco­mes (illu­so­rily) entan­gled and enmeshed in that illu­sory world [what Seth calls divine camou­flage]. Then, in the second move­ment, Spi­rit begins the return to Spi­rit, as Spi­rit; it grows and evol­ves and deve­lops, from mat­ter to body to mind to soul to Itself. And this move­ment is then pro­perly called evo­lu­tion: Spi­rit is rolling out or tur­ning out from its illu­sory [camou­flage] invol­ve­ment with Other­ness.” (21)

Wilber’s Inte­gral Psycho­logy (2000) synthe­si­zes more than one hun­dred pre­mo­dern, modern, and post­mo­dern deve­lop­men­tal sys­tems from East, West, North, and South. Theo­rists inc­lude Plo­ti­nus, Patan­jali, St. Teresa, Bald­win, Freud, Lead­bet­ter, Auro­bindo, Stei­ner, Pia­get, Grof, Tiller, Mas­low, Gar­de­ner, Haber­mas, Geb­ser, Gra­ves, Beck, Kohl­berg, Armon, Gilli­gan, Kegan, Cook-​​Greuter, Wade, to name a few. Howe­ver, it is only the pre­mo­dern sys­tems that inc­lude invo­lu­tion, and the rea­sons are beyond the scope of this essay, but involve the modern West’s dis­so­cia­tion of the three value sphe­res (science, art, and morals) men­tio­ned ear­lier. So it is to the pre­mo­derns we must look for details on involution.

“… accor­ding to the [pre­mo­dern] peren­nial phi­lo­sophy, in order for evo­lu­tion – which is the unfol­ding of higher struc­tu­res – to occur at all, those higher struc­tu­res must, in some sense, be pre­sent from the start: they must be enfol­ded, as poten­tial, in the lower modes. If not, then evo­lu­tion is nothing but crea­tion ex nihilo, out of nothing. And, as theo­lo­gians have long known, out of nothing you get nothing – ex nihilo nihil fit. And the story of invo­lu­tion is simply the story of how the higher modes came to be lost in the lower – how they came to be enw­rap­ped and enfol­ded in the lower sta­tes. Invo­lu­tion, or the enfol­ding of the higher in the lower, is the pre­con­di­tion of evo­lu­tion, or the unfol­ding of the higher sta­tes from the lower.” (22)

That lays the con­cep­tual foun­da­tion, but just how does Cau­sal Cons­cious­ness create mat­ter? Put another way, what are the actual mecha­nics of cons­cious crea­tion? Accor­ding to post­mo­dern phi­lo­sopher Chris­tian de Quin­cey (b.1949):

“… what Wilber’s model doesn’t cla­rify – a pro­blem com­mon to all ema­na­tio­nist onto­lo­gies [i.e. involution/​evolution in phy­si­cal, subtle, and cau­sal fields], from Plo­ti­nus onwards – is how mat­ter comes into being [i.e. is cons­ciously crea­ted] through invo­lu­tion if rea­lity begins with pure spi­rit or cons­cious­ness [“before the begin­ning”]. It is no more clear from Wilber’s [post­mo­dern] model how mat­ter can emerge from cons­cious­ness than how mind can emerge from mat­ter in the [modern] mate­ria­lists’ model.” (23)

In Radi­cal Nature (2002) De Quin­cey offers a solu­tion he calls radi­cal natu­ra­lism. He claims, follo­wing Bruno, that mat­ter and spi­rit are simply two sides of the same Ever-​​Present Rea­lity all the way up and down. Inte­res­tingly, this is exactly what Seth’s CUs (cau­sal) and EEs (subtle) attempt to show, namely, that Cons­cious­ness is simul­ta­neously no-​​thing (trans­cen­dent) and some-​​thing (imma­nent). It’s merely the two sides of All-​​That-​​Is, reflec­tions of the pri­mal para­dox. De Quin­cey sug­gests that there has always been mat­ter and Cons­cious­ness, and thus no begin­ning and no end in any abso­lute terms, though his model is not clear on how a Big Bang fits in with the notion of involutionary/​evolutionary cos­mic cycles.

And to Wilber’s defense, he has explai­ned “how mat­ter comes into being through invo­lu­tion if rea­lity begins with pure spi­rit or consciousness.”

Still, how does involution/​evolution actually work? Alfred North Whi­tehead clai­med in his final work Pro­cess and Rea­lity (1929) that first per­son pers­pec­ti­ves or “actual enti­ties” extend down into ato­mic struc­tu­res. This is con­so­nant with Seth’s CUs and EEs, but again, they also inc­lude pers­pec­ti­ves in cau­sal and subtle fields. For exam­ple, Seth said:

“We will call the basic units of cons­cious­ness ‘CU’ [cau­sal].… From them EE units [subtle] are for­med, and the first roots are sent out into the world of phy­si­cal mat­ter [phy­si­cal].” (24)

“These units of cons­cious­ness (CUs) move fas­ter than the speed of light, then – but that sta­te­ment itself is mea­nin­gless in a way, since the units exists outside as well as inside the fra­me­work in which light itself has mea­ning [i.e., the phy­si­cal field].

“As these units approach phy­si­cal struc­ture, howe­ver, they do slow down in your terms. Elec­trons, for exam­ple, are slow dullards in com­pa­ri­son with EE units. It goes without saying that the units of cons­cious­ness are ‘men­tal,’ or if you pre­fer, disem­bo­died, though from their inner orga­ni­za­tion all phy­si­cal forms emerge. Cer­tain inten­si­ties are built up of unit orga­ni­za­tion even before the sma­llest phy­si­cal par­ticle, or even invi­si­ble ‘phy­si­cal’ par­ticle, exists. These units form what you think of as the mind, around which the struc­ture of the brain is for­mu­la­ted. The units per­meate the brain.” (25)

Again, the phy­si­cal, subtle, and cau­sal fields are simul­ta­neously inter­pe­ne­tra­ted. But how do they co-​​function within the flow of time? Ken Wil­ber out­li­ned the moment to moment rela­tionship bet­ween invo­lu­tion and evo­lu­tion – called mic­ro­geny – in The Atman Pro­ject (1980).

“… not only did the whole invo­lu­tio­nary series [i.e. CUs => EEs => quan­tum fields] occur prior to one’s birth, one ree­nacts the entire series moment to moment [my empha­sis]. In this moment and this moment and this, an indi­vi­dual is [All-​​That-​​Is] – but, in this moment and this moment and this, he ends up as John Doe, as a sepa­rate self, as an iso­la­ted body appa­rently boun­ded by other iso­la­ted bodies.

“… If an indi­vi­dual has evol­ved to the subtle realm, then he will remem­ber the gross, men­tal, and subtle aspects of cons­cious­ness, but he will not remem­ber the cau­sal and ulti­mate aspects of this moment’s expe­rience: they remain in the emer­gent [sub­cons­cious], awai­ting emer­gence via remem­brance. Evo­lu­tion is simply the inter­cep­tion of mic­roin­vo­lu­tion at higher and higher sta­ges: the more evol­ved a per­son is, the less invol­ved he is.” (26)

Thus, involution/​evolution is a simul­ta­neous pro­cess within all fields of All-​​That-​​Is. Begin­nings and endings are only appa­rent in the phy­si­cal field, but not in the subtle and cau­sal. Seth further desc­ri­bed the inte­rac­tions bet­ween CUs, EEs, and quan­tum fields. In The “Unk­nown” Rea­lity (1977), he used the term blin­king to desc­ribe energy trans­for­ma­tions bet­ween cau­sal, subtle, and phy­si­cal fields.

“At no time, as a rule, is your body not here to you. Your expe­rience seems cen­te­red within it, with the rest of the world safely outside. Howe­ver, the par­ti­cu­lar selec­ti­vity of your kind of cons­cious­ness rides over lap­ses that you do not recog­nize. In a man­ner of spea­king, your bodies blink off and on like lights. Their rea­lity fluc­tua­tes, from your stand­point. For that mat­ter, so does the phy­si­cal universe.

“You can unders­tand what is meant by saying that your cons­cious­ness fluc­tua­tes – for each indi­vi­dual is aware of various inten­si­ties and con­cen­tra­tions. You are more alert, or, in your terms, more cons­cious on some occa­sions than others. Now the same applies to these units of cons­cious­ness – and to atoms, mole­cu­les, elec­trons, and other such phe­no­mena. The world lite­rally blinks off and on. This rea­lity of fluc­tua­tion in no way bothers your own fee­ling of con­sis­tency, howe­ver. The ‘holes of none­xis­tence’ are plug­ged up by the pro­cess of selec­ti­vity. This pro­cess choo­ses sig­ni­fi­can­ces then, again, around which expe­rience is built, and around which ‘life’ is felt. The very sen­sa­tions of one kind of life then auto­ma­ti­cally set up barriers against other such ‘world-​​schemes’ that do not corre­late with their own.” (27)

In Seth Speaks (1972), he hints at how quan­tum fields (as atoms) simul­ta­neously exist in para­llel phy­si­cal fields within subtle and cau­sal fields.

“It seems as if an atom ‘exists’ stea­dily for a cer­tain amount of time. Ins­tead it pha­ses in and out, so to speak. It fluc­tua­tes in a highly pre­dic­ta­ble pat­tern and rhythm. It can be per­cei­ved within your sys­tem [phy­si­cal field] only at cer­tain points in this fluc­tua­tion, so it seems to scien­tists that the atom is stea­dily pre­sent. They are not aware of any gaps of absence as far as the atom is concerned.

“In those periods of nonphy­si­cal pro­jec­tion, the off periods of fluc­tua­tion, the atoms ‘appear’ in another sys­tem of rea­lity [para­llel phy­si­cal field]. In that sys­tem they are per­cei­ved in what are ‘on’ points of fluc­tua­tion, and in that sys­tem also then the atoms (seem to) appear stea­dily. There are many such points of fluc­tua­tion, but your sys­tem of course is not aware of them, nor of the ulti­mate actions, uni­ver­ses, and sys­tems that exist within them.

“Now the same sort of beha­vior occurs on a deep, basic, sec­ret, and unex­plo­red psycho­lo­gi­cal level. The phy­si­cally orien­ted cons­cious­ness, res­pon­ding to one phase of the atom’s acti­vity, comes alive and awake to its par­ti­cu­lar exis­tence, but in bet­ween are other fluc­tua­tions in which cons­cious­ness is focu­sed upon enti­rely dif­fe­rent sys­tems of rea­lity; each of these coming awake and res­pon­ding, and each one having no sense of absence, and memory only of those par­ti­cu­lar fluc­tua­tions to which they res­pond.” (28)

Seth pro­vi­des addi­tio­nal con­cepts like coor­di­nate points to ela­bo­rate on the above. But the main point is what modern phy­si­cists model as quan­tum fields cap­tu­res only a minute por­tion of the lar­ger psycho­lo­gi­cal rea­lity of All-​​That-​​Is. Seth’s CU and EE metaphors hint at ways to begin to explore these hid­den fields. Right now, when we mani­pu­late quan­tum fields, for ins­tance split­ting the atom, we only mani­pu­late its sur­face aspects. There are dee­per psycho­lo­gi­cal aspects wai­ting to be dis­co­ve­red and mani­pu­la­ted. Though Seth doesn’t pro­vide the mathe­ma­tics invol­ved, he uses these sim­ple metaphors to sug­gest that there are hid­den subtle and cau­sal fields nes­ted within the phy­si­cal. But we won’t even enter­tain the pos­si­bi­li­ties until our theo­ries expand to inc­lude the Cons­cious aspects of mat­ter, and Seth’s CUs and EEs are exce­llent theo­re­ti­cal jum­ping off points.

The pos­si­bi­li­ties are still the stuff of science fic­tion. But the best science fic­tion often pre­ce­des science fact, thin­king of Jules Verne and H. G. Wells. Emer­ging post­mo­dern world­views will inc­lude some type of involutionary/​evolutionary cos­mo­logy. Invo­lu­tion brings Cau­sal Cons­cious­ness back into con­si­de­ra­tion, because it pro­vi­des a Pri­mal Cause for evo­lu­tion that goes beyond sim­ple natu­ral selec­tion and gene­tic muta­tion. Moreo­ver, it sug­gests that scien­tists must cog­ni­ti­vely and spi­ri­tually evolve even further before they can dis­co­ver and learn to mani­pu­late the as yet unk­nown cau­sal and subtle dimen­sions of matter.

Up from Eden?

There have been three major sta­ges of cons­cious­ness evo­lu­tion to date. The Big Bang (phy­sios) follo­wed the emer­gence of self-​​replicating life (bios) that even­tually became self-​​aware (noos). Though far from a linear story, the cau­sal and subtle currents of Cons­cious­ness invo­lu­tion pla­yed an impor­tant role “before the begin­ning” as seen in Seth’s crea­tion myth, and sub­se­quently throughout the evo­lu­tio­nary pro­cess. Together, we call this involutionary/​evolutionary pro­cess cons­cious crea­tion. So what will next major stage of cons­cious crea­tion fea­ture? Though still the stuff of science fic­tion, Teilhard, Auro­bindo, Wil­ber, and Seth/​Jane Roberts pro­vide evo­ca­tive looks at what pro­ba­ble futu­res may hold in store for humanity.

Teilhard de Char­din (18811955) was a Jesuit priest, geo­lo­gist, and paleon­to­lo­gist. His strug­gle to recon­cile pre­mo­dern Chris­tian dogma with modern scien­ti­fic breakth­roughs pro­du­ced a remar­ka­ble book The Phe­no­me­non of Man. It was com­ple­ted by 1940, though repres­sed by the Catho­lic Church, and not made avai­la­ble in English until 1959. Howe­ver, it is still very rele­vant today, because he inc­lu­ded Cau­sal Cons­cious­ness in his theo­ries, and yet, mana­ged to main­tain a scien­ti­fic view of evolution.

Teilhard was the first to pro­perly iden­tify the three major sta­ges of evo­lu­tion to date. He called them the lithosphere, biosphere, and noosphere. (Geo­lo­gists were big on sphe­res to desc­ribe dif­fe­rent domains of pla­net earth, e.g., lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, etc.) He sho­wed that the actions of bio­ge­ne­sis and noo­ge­ne­sis wor­ked in con­cert, and were dis­tin­guishing fea­tu­res of the biosphere and noosphere.

Sir Julian Hux­ley (18871975), a bio­lo­gist, wor­ked with Teilhard for over ten years and was fami­liar with his work. He rea­li­zed that Teilhard was one of the first peo­ple to inte­grate modern evo­lu­tio­nary theory within a lar­ger phi­lo­sophi­cal and theo­lo­gi­cal context.

“Through his com­bi­na­tion of wide scien­ti­fic know­ledge with deep reli­gious fee­ling and a rigo­rous sense of values, [Teilhard] has for­ced [pre­mo­dern] theo­lo­gians to view their ideas in the new pers­pec­tive of evo­lu­tion, and [modern] scien­tists to see the spi­ri­tual impli­ca­tions of their know­ledge. He has both cla­ri­fied and uni­fied our vision of rea­lity [my empha­sis]. In the light of that new com­prehen­sion, it is no lon­ger pos­si­ble to main­tain that science and reli­gion must ope­rate in thought-​​tight com­part­ments or con­cern sepa­rate sec­tors of life; they are both rele­vant to the whole of human exis­tence. The religiously-​​minded can no lon­ger turn their backs upon the natu­ral world, or seek escape from its imper­fec­tions in a super­na­tu­ral world, or; nor can the materialistically-​​minded deny impor­tance to spi­ri­tual expe­rience and reli­gious fee­ling.” (29)

So what was the goal of Teilhard’s post­mo­dern evo­lu­tio­nary view? Chris­tian theo­lo­gians have a tra­di­tion called escha­to­logy, which are metaphy­si­cal theo­ries about how the world will end, often clothed in pre­mo­dern reli­gious dogma. When Teilhard loo­ked ahead he saw what he called the Omega Point, the pull exer­ted by Cau­sal Cons­cious­ness toward a final mani­fes­ta­tion on earth. Inte­res­tingly, Teilhard briefly con­si­de­red the pos­si­bi­lity of off-​​world tra­vel and galac­tic inte­rac­tion of noosphe­res, but rejec­ted them as less pro­ba­ble. I bring this up, because in this day of Star Trek-​​inspired science fic­tion, we best never say never! Howe­ver, ins­tead he thought it was more pro­ba­ble that,

“… our noosphere is des­ti­ned to close in upon itself in [galac­tic] iso­la­tion, and that it is in a psychi­cal rather than a spa­tial direc­tion that it will find an out­let, without need to leave or over­flow the earth. Hence, quite natu­rally the [evo­lu­tio­nary] notion of change of state recurs.

“Noo­ge­ne­sis rises upwards in us and through us uncea­singly. … so as to shift its cen­tre on to the trans­cen­dent cen­tre of its inc­rea­sing con­cen­tra­tion. This will be the end of the spi­rit of the earth.

“The end of the world: the who­le­sale inter­nal intro­ver­sion upon itself of the noosphere, which has simul­ta­neously reached the utter­most limit of its com­ple­xity and its centrality.

“The end of the world: the overth­row of equi­li­brium detaching the mind, ful­fi­lled at last, from its mate­rial matrix, so that it will hen­ce­forth rest with all its weight on God-​​Omega [All-​​That-​​Is].

“The end of the world: cri­ti­cal point simul­ta­neously of emer­gence and emer­sion, of matu­ra­tion and escape.” (30) Thus, All-​​That-​​Is holds the poten­tial for what we today would con­si­der divine mani­fes­ta­tion (Theos) through the Omega-​​Point. Of course, Teilhard also points out that we could always regress, go collec­ti­vely senile, or self-​​destruct along the way. Again, nothing is set in stone.

Sri Auro­bindo (18721950) was born in India, and edu­ca­ted in England where he was expo­sed to Wes­tern ideas and became a wri­ter. After his return to India, he became a news­pa­per edi­tor and lea­der of a natio­na­list move­ment. After a year in jail, he was intro­du­ced to yoga and medi­ta­tion. Pro­foundly chan­ged, he went on to found an ash­ram and dedi­cate the rest of his life to the study and prac­tice of Advaita (non­dual) Vedanta. Though his works are mainly phi­lo­sophi­cal and metaphy­si­cal, he is cre­di­ted with synthe­si­zing evo­lu­tio­nary theory with Eas­tern invo­lu­tio­nary theory. Thus, his work does not inc­lude the detai­led scien­ti­fic refe­ren­ces, seen for exam­ple, in Teilhard’s or Wilber’s work. Still, Auro­bindo out­li­ned a post­mo­dern way to unders­tand how Cau­sal Cons­cious­ness crea­tes, one that had a big influence on Wilber’s early work.

Auro­bindo wrote The Life Divine (1949) over a period of years from 19141920. His ver­sion of the “Great Chain of Being” can be sim­pli­fied into five major aspects nes­ted within the three great fields of All-​​That-​​Is: Mat­ter (phy­si­cal), Life (phy­si­cal), Mind (phy­si­cal), Over­mind (subtle), and Super­mind (causal).

“The oldest Vedan­tic know­ledge tells us of five degrees of our being, the mate­rial, the vital [Life], the men­tal, the ideal [Over­mind], and the spi­ri­tual or bea­ti­fic [Super­mind] and to each of these gra­des of our soul there corres­ponds a grade of our subs­tance, a sheath as it was called in the ancient figu­ra­tive lan­guage. A later psycho­logy found that these five sheaths of our subs­tance were the mate­rial of three bodies, gross phy­si­cal, subtle, and cau­sal, in all of which the soul actually and simul­ta­neously dwells, although there and now we are super­fi­cially cons­cious only of the mate­rial vehicle. But it is pos­si­ble to come cons­cious in our other bodies as well and it is in fact the ope­ning up of the veil bet­ween them and con­se­quently bet­ween our phy­si­cal, psychi­cal [low subtle], and ideal [high subtle] per­so­na­li­ties which is the cause of those ‘psychic’ and ‘occult’ phe­no­mena that are now begin­ning to be inc­rea­singly though yet too little and too clum­sily exa­mi­ned.…” (31)

Further, notice that Mat­ter is equi­va­lent to the phy­siosphere, Life the biosphere, and Mind the noosphere, the three major sta­ges of evo­lu­tion to date. Also, Aurobindo’s Vedic onto­logy of phy­si­cal, subtle, and cau­sal sheaths or bodies are onto­lo­gi­cally equi­va­lent to our use of fields. In his cos­mo­logy, Super­mind (All-​​That-​​Is) func­tions as the Pri­mal Cause that fuels evo­lu­tion through involution.

“Super­mind … pos­ses­ses the power of deve­lop­ment, of evo­lu­tion, of making expli­cit, and that power carries with it the other power of invo­lu­tion, of enve­lop­ment, of making impli­cit. In a sense, the whole of crea­tion may be said to be a move­ment bet­ween two invo­lu­tions, [Cau­sal] Spi­rit in which all is invol­ved and out of which all evol­ves down­ward to the other pole of Mat­ter, Mat­ter in which also all is invol­ved and out of which all evol­ves upwards to the other pole of Spi­rit.” (32)

So what does this great sage see coming next in evo­lu­tio­nary terms? In the clo­sing chap­ter, The Divine Life, Auro­bindo explo­red pro­ba­ble futu­res. He wrest­led with how the next great phase he called gnos­tic cons­cious­ness might mani­fest. Pos­sibly in small enc­la­ves and com­mu­ni­ties, but that has not wor­ked to date in terms of the pre­mo­dern reli­gions. Though there was no clear path he could dis­cern, he sen­sed that this next great stage of evo­lu­tion, gnos­tic cons­cious­ness, would inc­lude a pro­found shift in cons­cious­ness and enhan­ced capacities.

“An enti­rely new cons­cious­ness in many indi­vi­duals trans­for­ming their whole being, trans­for­ming their men­tal, vital, and phy­si­cal nature-​​self, is nee­ded for the new life to appear; only such a trans­for­ma­tion of the gene­ral mind, life, body nature can bring into being a new worthwhile collec­tive exis­tence. The evo­lu­tio­nary [stri­ving] must tend not merely to create a new type of men­tal beings but another order of beings who have rai­sed their whole exis­tence from our pre­sent men­ta­li­sed ani­ma­lity to a grea­ter spi­ri­tual level of the earth-​​nature.

“Any such com­plete trans­for­ma­tion of the earth-​​life in a num­ber of human beings could not esta­blish itself alto­gether at once; even when the turning-​​point has been reached, the deci­sive line cros­sed, the new life in its begin­nings would have to pass through a period of ordeal and arduous deve­lop­ment.” (33)

Thus, Auro­bindo points to the con­ti­nued birth pangs as Cons­cious­ness attempts to mani­fest ever more fully in the phy­si­cal field. In terms of inc­rea­sed psychic abi­li­ties, ima­gine what a pla­net of over six billion peo­ple might be like with the majo­rity of adults have deve­lo­ped abi­li­ties like Jane Roberts or Ramana Maharshi, where psi phe­no­mena like tele­pathy, clair­vo­yance, pre­cog­ni­tion, and tele­ki­ne­sis are the norm. The para­nor­mal would simply be nor­mal. As always, time will tell.

Now, we move to Ken Wil­ber (b.1949). The con­sis­tent theme in his books is the synthe­sis of Eas­tern and Wes­tern psycho­lo­gies to for­mu­late a via­ble post­mo­dern theory of cons­cious­ness, one that inte­gra­tes the essen­tial para­dox of Cons­cious­ness as simul­ta­neously trans­cen­dent and imma­nent in our uni­verse. He was strongly influen­ced by Auro­bindo in two early works The Atman Pro­ject (1980) and Up From Eden (1981). The for­mer detai­led sta­ges of human deve­lop­ment and the lat­ter explo­red sta­ges of cul­tu­ral deve­lop­ment. Both works are bac­ked up by con­si­de­ra­ble amounts of scien­ti­fic, phi­lo­sophi­cal, and theo­lo­gi­cal research to iden­tify the lea­ding edges of indi­vi­dual and cul­tu­ral evolution.

The The Atman Pro­ject out­li­nes seven­teen poten­tial sta­ges of indi­vi­dual deve­lop­ment. (34) While there is plenty of data from modern deve­lop­men­tal research on fami­liar sta­ges – like emo­tio­nal, sexual, egoic, etc. – the main cha­llenge is how to get enough data on the higher trans­per­so­nal sta­ges. There just are not large enough sam­ples for ade­quate research right now on what Wil­ber calls psychic, subtle, cau­sal, and non­dual sta­ges of deve­lop­ment glea­ned from Eas­tern psychologies.

“Modern deve­lop­men­tal psycho­logy has, on the whole, simply devo­ted itself to the explo­ra­tion and expla­na­tion of the various levels, sta­ges, and strata of the human cons­ti­tu­tion – mind, per­so­na­lity, psycho­se­xua­lity, cha­rac­ter, cons­cious­ness. The cog­ni­tive stu­dies of Pia­get and Wer­ner, the works of Loe­vin­ger and Arieti and Mas­low and Jakob­son, the moral deve­lop­ment stu­dies of Kohl­berg – all subsc­ribe, in whole or part, to the con­cept of stra­ti­fied sta­ges of inc­rea­sing dif­fe­ren­tia­tion, inte­gra­tion, and unity.

“Having said that much, we are at once entit­led to ask, ‘What, then, is the highest stage of unity to which one may aspire?’ Or, perhaps we should not phrase the ques­tion in such ulti­mate terms, but simply ask ins­tead, ‘What is the nature of some of the higher and highest sta­ges of deve­lop­ment? What forms of unity are disc­lo­sed in the most deve­lo­ped souls of the human species?

“The pro­blem with that type of ques­tion lies in fin­ding exam­ples of truly higher-​​order per­so­na­li­ties – and in deci­ding exactly what cons­ti­tu­tes a higher-​​order per­so­na­lity in the first place. My own fee­ling is that as huma­nity con­ti­nues its collec­tive evo­lu­tion, this will become very easy to decide, because more and more ‘enligh­te­ned’ per­so­na­li­ties will show up in data popu­la­tions, and psycho­lo­gists will be for­ced, by their sta­tis­ti­cal analy­ses, to inc­lude higher-​​order pro­fi­les in their deve­lop­men­tal sta­ges. In the mean­time, one’s idea of ‘higher-​​order’ or ‘highly-​​developed’ remains rather phi­lo­sophic. Nonethe­less, those few gif­ted souls who have bothe­red to look at this pro­blem have sug­ges­ted that the world’s great mys­tics and sages repre­sent some of the very highest, if not the highest, of all sta­ges of human deve­lop­ment.” (35)

Jane Roberts pre­sents an inte­res­ting case in point. Her abi­li­ties sho­wed evi­dence of subtle field capa­ci­ties. For exam­ple, Seth trance, Sumari sin­ging, Hel­per, world­view books, her psychic library, heroic dimen­sions and per­so­na­ges, and more. But she was only one per­son who was ahead of her time, and well above the collec­tive cen­ter of gravity.

So what lies next in terms of indi­vi­dual deve­lop­ment? Wil­ber calls the twelfth stage of human deve­lop­ment the cen­taur, and it fea­tu­res a post­con­ven­tio­nal cog­ni­tive capa­city called vision-​​logic, based in part, on Gebser’s integral-​​aperspectival logic. Vision-​​logic uses fuzzy logic to see net­works within net­works, and con­texts within con­texts. It can situate mul­ti­ple, even con­tra­dic­tory facts in a world­cen­tric mosaic. Thus, the cen­taur and its abi­lity to use vision-​​logic hint at what emer­gent post­mo­dern world­views may look like on a glo­bal scale.

“It is the inte­gra­tive power of vision-​​logic, I believe, and not the indis­so­cia­tion of [pre­mo­dern] tri­bal magic or the [pre­mo­dern] impe­ria­lism of mythic invol­ve­ment that is des­pe­ra­tely nee­ded on a glo­bal scale. For it is [post­mo­dern] vision-​​logic with its centauric/​planetary world­view that, in my opi­nion, holds the only hope for the inte­gra­tion of the biosphere and noosphere, the supra­na­tio­nal orga­ni­za­tion of pla­ne­tary cons­cious­ness, the genuine recog­ni­tion of eco­lo­gi­cal balance, the unres­trai­ned and unfor­ced forms of glo­bal dis­course, the non­do­mi­na­ting and non­coer­cive forms of fede­ra­ted sta­tes, the unres­trai­ned flow of world­wide com­mu­ni­ca­tive exchange, the pro­duc­tion of genuine world citi­zens, and the encul­tu­ra­tion of female agency (i.e., the inte­gra­tion of male and female in both the noosphere and the biosphere) – all of which, in my opi­nion, is neverthe­less simply the plat­form for the truly inte­res­ting forms of higher and trans­per­so­nal sta­tes of cons­cious­ness lying yet in our collec­tive future – if there is one.” (36)

In Up From Eden Wil­ber detai­led cul­tu­ral sta­ges of evo­lu­tion, as influen­ced by Geb­ser, into eight major sta­ges. (37) Today we are in the midst of the fourth or rational-​​mental-​​egoic stage. Thus, the emer­gent fifth stage is what he calls psychic-​​nirmanakaya-​​shamanistic.

“The Nir­ma­na­kaya Age will mean a society of men and women who, by vir­tue of an ini­tial glimpse into trans­cen­dence: will start to unders­tand vividly their com­mon huma­nity and brother/​sisterhood; will trans­cend roles based on bodily dif­fe­ren­ces of skin color and sex; will grow in mental-​​psychic cla­rity; will make policy deci­sions on the basic of intui­tion as well as ratio­na­lity; will see the same Cons­cious­ness in each and every soul, indeed, in all crea­tion, and will start to act correspondingly.…

“In short, a true Wis­dom Cul­ture will start to emerge, a cul­ture which (1) uses the body appro­pria­tely in diet (uro­bo­ros) and in sex (typhon), both free of repression/​oppression on the one hand, and obsessive/​compulsive ove­rin­dul­gence on the other; (2) uses the mem­bership mind appro­pria­tely in unres­trai­ned com­mu­ni­ca­tion, free of domi­na­tion and pro­pa­ganda; (3) uses the ego appro­pria­tely in free exchan­ges of mutual self-​​esteem; and (4) uses the psyche level appro­pria­tely in a bonding-​​consciousness that shows every per­son to be an ulti­ma­tely equal mem­ber of the mys­ti­cal body of Christ/​Krishna/​Buddha. And that stage, if lived benignly and sanely, will pre­pare the way for level 6, or Sambho­ga­kaya des­cent [theosphere] at large. But that is so far off, I needn’t even speculate.”

“The point, rather, is that a sig­ni­fi­cant mino­rity of indi­vi­duals are today begin­ning the trans­for­ma­tion into trans­per­so­nal realms.” (38)

Accor­ding to Wil­ber, our collec­tive cen­ter of gra­vity has evol­ved just past a half­way point. If we define All-​​That-​​Is as a “Great Chain of Being” as mat­ter, body, mind, soul, and Cons­cious­ness, then we have mani­fest three-​​fifths of its poten­tials to date as mat­ter (phy­sios), body (bios), and mind (noos). What remains, then, are soul (psychos) and Cons­cious­ness (Theos) to mani­fest in some kind of as yet uni­ma­gi­ned way.

“… once the Great Chain is plug­ged into an evo­lu­tio­nary and deve­lop­men­tal view, it can hap­pily coe­xist with much of the God of the modern West, namely, evo­lu­tion. Moreo­ver, it rai­ses the stun­ning pos­si­bi­lity: if evo­lu­tion has thus far unfol­ded the first three-​​fifths of the Great Chain, isn’t it likely that it will con­ti­nue in the coming years and unfold the higher two-​​fifths? If that is so, God lies down the road, not up it; Spi­rit is found by going for­ward, not back­ward; the Gar­den of Eden lies in our future, not our past.” (39)

In collec­tive terms, then, Wil­ber sees the emer­gence of what he calls the theosphere as the next major stage of evo­lu­tion. But we are a long, long way from that.

Finally, what did Seth/​Jane Roberts (19291984) have to say about most pro­ba­ble futu­res? Well, Seth said just that: the future con­sists of infi­nite pro­ba­ble sel­ves, cul­tu­res, and uni­ver­ses, so there are poten­tials for great growth, regres­sive night­ma­res, and everything in bet­ween. Seth tal­ked about the return of what he called the Christ entity in Seth Speaks, Chap­ter 21, The Mea­ning of Reli­gion. Why Seth pla­yed into the mes­siah mythos and pre­mo­dern prophecy is beyond our scope, but he points out that by the year 2075, a major spi­ri­tual change will occur on a glo­bal scale. Howe­ver, since all futu­res are more or less pro­ba­ble, and Seth does not pro­mote pre­de­ter­mi­ned futu­res, take the follo­wing with a grain of salt.

“… Now these [bibli­cal] prophe­cies were given in terms of the current cul­ture at that time, and the­re­fore, while the stage has been set, the dis­tor­tions are deplo­ra­ble, for this Christ will not come at the end of your world as the prophe­cies have been maintaining.

“He will not come to reward the righ­teous and send evil­doers to eter­nal doom. He will, howe­ver, begin a new reli­gious drama. A cer­tain his­to­ri­cal con­ti­nuity will be main­tai­ned. As hap­pe­ned once before, howe­ver, He will not be gene­rally known for who He is. There will be no glo­rious proc­la­ma­tion to which the whole world will bow. He will return to straigh­ten out Chris­tia­nity, which will be in a sham­bles at the time of His arri­val, and to set up a new sys­tem of thought when the world is sorely in need of one.

“By that time, all reli­gions will be in severe cri­sis. He will under­mine reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions – not unite them. His mes­sage will be that of the indi­vi­dual in rela­tion to All-​​That-​​Is. He will clearly state methods by which each indi­vi­dual can attain a state of inti­mate con­tact with his own entity [inner ego]; the entity [subtle field] to some extent being man’s media­tor with All-​​That-​​Is [cau­sal field].

“By 2,075, all of this will be already accomplished.

“You may make a note here that Nos­tra­da­mus saw the dis­so­lu­tion of the Roman Catho­lic Church as the end of the world. He could not ima­gine civi­li­za­tion without it, hence many of his later pre­dic­tions should be read with this in mind.

“The third per­so­na­lity of Christ will indeed be known as a great psychic, for it is He who will teach huma­nity to use those inner sen­ses that alone make true spi­ri­tua­lity pos­si­ble. Sla­yers and vic­tims will change roles as rein­car­na­tio­nal memo­ries rise to the sur­face of cons­cious­ness. Through the deve­lop­ment of these abi­li­ties, the sac­red­ness of all life will be inti­ma­tely recog­ni­zed and appre­cia­ted.” (40)

Thus, Seth hints that most pro­ba­ble futu­res in the next seventy years will birth yet another reli­gious drama. Will it occur with large num­bers of peo­ple pushing into cen­tau­ric levels of awa­re­ness? Unless this drama occurs within a popu­la­tion whose majo­rity has wide­ned into post­con­ven­tio­nal sta­ges of cog­ni­tive and moral deve­lop­ment, it could be a regres­sive night­mare. I would also request from this “mes­siah” that s/​he work on all forms of regres­sive fun­da­men­ta­lism, not just the Chris­tian and Isla­mic ver­sions, but scien­tism as well.

Now, what did Jane Roberts see in terms of pro­ba­ble futu­res? Since she was a poet and wri­ter, she explo­red her psychic abi­li­ties outside of pre­mo­dern reli­gious and modern scien­ti­fic world­views. Jane was not an evo­lu­tio­nary scien­tist or deve­lop­men­tal psycho­lo­gist, yet she wrote three theo­re­ti­cal Aspect Psycho­logy books to explain her per­so­nal expe­rien­ces. In the second book, Psychic Poli­tics (1976), Jane recei­ved mate­rial in alte­red sta­tes from what she called The Library. Part of this mate­rial was called The Codi­cils. They pro­vi­ded “… a fresh hypothe­sis upon which to build a new, bet­ter civi­li­za­tion,” and thus, form the foun­da­tion of Roberts’s opti­mis­tic vision for the future of humanity.

1. “All of crea­tion is sac­red and alive, each part con­nec­ted to each other part, and each com­mu­ni­ca­ting in a crea­tive coo­pe­ra­tive com­merce in which the sma­llest and the lar­gest are equally involved.

2. “The phy­si­cal sen­ses pre­sent one uni­que ver­sion of rea­lity, in which being is per­cei­ved in a par­ti­cu­lar dimen­sio­na­li­zed sequence, built up through neu­ro­lo­gi­cal pat­ter­ning, and is the result of one kind of neu­ro­lo­gi­cal focus. There are alter­nate neu­ro­lo­gi­cal rou­tes, bio­lo­gi­cally accep­ta­ble, and other sequen­ces so far not chosen.

3. “Our indi­vi­dual self-​​government and our poli­ti­cal orga­ni­za­tions are by-​​products of sequen­tial per­cep­tion, and our exte­rior methods of com­mu­ni­ca­tion set up pat­terns that corre­late with, and dupli­cate, our synap­tic beha­vior. We lock our­sel­ves into cer­tain struc­tu­res of rea­lity in this way. 4. “Our sequen­tial pre­ju­di­ced per­cep­tion is inhe­rently far more fle­xi­ble than we recog­nize, howe­ver. There are half steps – other unper­cei­ved impul­ses – that leap the nerve ends, too fast and too slow for our usual focus. Recog­ni­tion of these can be lear­ned and encou­ra­ged, brin­ging in per­cep­tive data that will trig­ger chan­ges in usual sense res­ponse, filling out poten­tial sense spec­tra with which we are nor­mally not familiar.

5. “This grea­ter pos­si­ble sense spec­trum inc­lu­des inc­rea­sed per­cep­tion of inner bodily rea­lity in terms of cellu­lar iden­tity and beha­vior; auto­ma­tic cons­cious con­trol of bodily pro­ces­ses; and inc­rea­sed per­cep­tion of exte­rior con­di­tions as the usual sen­ses become more vigo­rous. (Our sight, for exam­ple, is not nearly as effi­cient as it could be. Nuan­ces of color, tex­ture, and depth could be expan­ded and our entire visual area attain a bri­lliance pre­sently con­si­de­red excep­tio­nal or super­nor­mal.)” (41)

6. “Each per­son is a uni­que ver­sion of an inner model that is in itself a bank of poten­tials, varia­tions, and crea­ti­vity. The psyche is a seed of indi­vi­dua­lity and selfhood, cast in space-​​time but ulti­ma­tely inde­pen­dent of it.

7. “We are born in many times and pla­ces, but not in a return of iden­tity as we unders­tand it; not as a copy in dif­fe­rent clothes, but as a new self ever-​​rising out of the psyche’s life as the new ruler rises to the podium or throne, in a psychic poli­tics as ancient as humanity.

8. “Civi­li­za­tions both past and pre­sent repre­sent pro­jec­tions of inner selfhood, and mirror the state of the mass psyche at any given time. We hold memory and know­ledge of past civi­li­za­tions as we hold uncons­cious memo­ries of our pri­vate early current-​​life experiences.

9. “From our pre­sent, we exert force upon the past as well as the future, for­ming our ideas of the past and reac­ting accor­dingly. We actually pro­ject events into our own new past.

10. “Each gene­ra­tion forms such a new past, one that exists as surely as the pre­sent; not just as an ima­gi­nary cons­truct but as a prac­ti­cal plat­form – a newly built past – upon which we build our present.

11. “Options and alter­nate models for selfhood and civi­li­za­tions exist in a psychic pat­tern of pro­ba­bi­li­ties from which we can choose to actua­lize an enti­rely new life sys­tem.” (42)

“Accep­tance of these first codi­cils would expand prac­ti­cal know­ledge of the self, break down barriers that are the result of our pre­ju­di­ced per­cep­tion, and res­truc­ture per­so­nal, social, and poli­ti­cal life.

“Con­cepts of the self and prac­ti­cal expe­rience of the self must be broa­de­ned if the race is to deve­lop its true poten­tials. Only an evo­lu­tion of cons­cious­ness can alter the world view that appears to our offi­cial line of [modern] cons­cious­ness.” (43)

Roberts had more to say in her final Aspects book The God of Jane: A Psychic Mani­festo (1981). The God of Jane con­cept sho­wed a deep, per­so­nal con­nec­tion to the Cau­sal Aspect of All-​​That-​​Is within the subtle field, to what Roberts called the source self. So the God of You ser­ves as a media­tor to All-​​That-​​Is. No ins­ti­tu­tion can own it, regu­late it, or con­trol it. The poli­ti­cal and eco­no­mic impli­ca­tions obviously require new social struc­tu­res to sup­port these values.

A Psychic Mani­festo is a pas­sio­nate poem fue­led by a life­time of trans­per­so­nal insight that rejects pre­mo­dern and modern cons­traints, and proc­laims the only authen­tic way to know Cons­cious­ness is through unme­dia­ted, direct expe­rience. It sum­ma­ri­zed Roberts’s post­mo­dern world­view poe­ti­cally, and ser­ves as a coun­ter­part to her finale, An Ame­ri­can Vision, that sum­ma­ri­zed her post­mo­dern world­view theo­re­ti­cally – “a public vision in which we all uphold a democ­racy of spi­rit, and insist upon inter­pre­ting not just the Bible but the nature of rea­lity for our­sel­ves!” (44)

Thus, Roberts’s post­mo­dern vision was pas­sio­na­tely fue­led by more than twenty years of trans­per­so­nal expe­rience. She sen­sed the poten­tials that lie just around the next evo­lu­tio­nary bend, and was opti­mis­tic about our chan­ces going for­ward. And as we will see in the next sec­tion, Seth’s vision of poten­tial dream-​​art scien­ces out­line yet another prac­ti­cal and opti­mis­tic view of pro­ba­ble futu­res. In the mean time, we have come a long, long way up from pri­mor­dial Eden toward the collec­tive rea­li­za­tion of our divine nature, but still have a long way to go.

Notes:

Fred Alan Wolf, Mind into Mat­ter: A New Alchemy of Science and Spi­rit, Moment Point Press, Ports­mouth, NH, 2001, p. 82.

(18) Fred Alan Wolf, The Drea­ming Uni­verse, Simon and Shus­ter, NY, NY, 1994, p. 1456.

(19) Chris­tian de Quin­cey, The Big Bang: A Modern Myth Without Mea­ning?, http://​www​.mighty​words​.com/​b​r​o​w​s​e​/​d​e​t​a​i​l​s​_​b​c​05​.​j​s​p​?​s​k​u​=​M​W​S​K​6​Z​&​a​m​p​;​p​r​i​v​a​t​e​L​a​b​e​l​=​f​a​l​s​e​2000, Decem­ber 05, 2000, p. 6.

(20) Ken Wil­ber, Eye of Spi­rit, Shambhala, Bos­ton, MA, 1997, p. 273.

(21) Ken Wil­ber, The Spec­trum of Cons­cious­ness, Quest Books, Whea­ton, IL, 1993, p. xviii.

(22) Ken Wil­ber, The Atman Pro­ject, Quest Books, Whea­ton, IL, 1996, p. 185.

(23) Chris­tian de Quincy, Dif­fe­rent Kinds of Hie­rarchies, http://​www​.deeps​pi​rit​.com/​s​y​s​-​t​m​p​l​/​r​e​h​a​b​i​l​i​t​a​t​i​n​g​h​i​e​r​a​r​c​h​y2/, July 222005.

(24) Roberts, The “Unk­nown” Rea­lity, Vol. 1, p. 54.

(25) Roberts, Ibid, p. 59.

(26) Wil­ber, Op. cit., p. 202.

(27) Roberts, Op. cit., p. 60.

(28) Jane Roberts, Seth Speaks, Amber-​​Allen, San Rafael, CA, 1994, p. 235.

(29) Teilhard de Char­din, The Phe­no­me­non of Man, Har­per & Row, New York, NY, 1959, p. 26.

(30) Teilhard, Ibid, p. 287288.

(31) Sri Auro­bindo, The Life Divine, Lotus Press, Twin Lakes, WI, 2000, p. 274275.

(32) Auro­bindo, Ibid, p. 139.

(33) Auro­bindo, Ibid, p. 1,100.

(34) Wilber’s seven­teen sta­ges of human deve­lop­ment based upon the “Great Chain of Being” from The Atman Pro­ject, p. 207.

1. Ple­ro­ma­tic
2. Uro­bo­ric
3. Axial-​​Body
4. Pranic-​​Body
5. Image-​​Body
6. Mem­bership cog­ni­tion
7. Early egoic/​personic
8. Middle egoic/​personic
9. Late egoic/​personic
10. Mature Ego
11. Bio­so­cial
12. Cen­taur
13. Low Subtle
14. High Subtle
15. Low Cau­sal
16. High Cau­sal
17. Ultimate

(35) Wil­ber, The Atman Pro­ject, p. 23.

(36) Ken Wil­ber, Sex, Eco­logy, and Spi­ri­tua­lity, Shambhala, Bos­ton, MA, 1995, p. 187.

(37) Wilber’s eight sta­ges of cul­tu­ral deve­lop­ment based upon the “Great Chain of Being” from Up From Eden, p. 12.

1. Nature (ple­ro­ma­tic, mate­rial; uroboric-​​reptilian)
2. Body (typho­nic; magi­cal)
3. Early Mind (ver­bal, mythi­cal, mem­bership, paleo­lo­gi­cal)
4. Advan­ced Mind (ratio­nal, metal-​​egoic, self-​​reflexive)
5. Psychic (nir­ma­na­kaya, sha­ma­nis­tic)
6. Subtle (sambho­ga­kaya, saintly)
7. Cau­sal (dhar­ma­kaya, sagely)
8. Ulti­mate (svabha­vi­ka­kaya, absolute)

(38) Ken Wil­ber, Up from Eden, Shambhala, Bos­ton, MA, 1996, p. 346347.

(39) Ken Wil­ber, One Taste, Shambhala, Bos­ton, MA, 2000, p. 112.

(40) Roberts, Seth Speaks, p. 328329.

(41) Jane Roberts, Psychic Poli­tics: An Aspect Psycho­logy Book, Moment Point Press, Ports­mouth, NH, 2000, p. 211212.

(42) Roberts, Ibid, p. 220221.

(43) Roberts, Ibid, p. 212.

VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Tags: adam, Al, alien, art, blog, book, car, CC, center, change, color, contact, create, created, current, Dan, dark, Design, DL, dual, early, earth, eat, enter, ES, EST, ET, evolution, face, Fire, galactic, Hot, http, light, Log, los, major, mid, mind, Minor, mode, Music, not, order, passion, people, photo, Photos, play, PO, product, san, set, seth, sethd8, Sign, Site, size, So, space, spirit, spiritual, St, subconscious, ten, The, Web, word, Work

Related posts

Advertisement

Leave a Reply