Session 35 - Abraham Lincoln Walk-In - Wrong Date!

[Steppingfeet]

I didn’t intend to contaminate a Ra forum with other channeled material,

Too late. Inroads of contamination made.

: )

This is not to say that the past is so malleable that we can “choose” the one where Truman did not drop the bomb.  We live in a consensus reality and the fact is that we, you me and everyone else, have collectively chosen the past where the bomb did drop.  So as a practical matter, on the macro level, there is only one past.  I was only explaining why entities outside our collective 3d physical reality might legitimately describe other “pasts” to us when they channel because from their vantage point there are multiple pasts that they can see.

I can understand that perspective.

I don't grasp the theorized workings of parallel realities, but were they to exist in tangible form, I could understand how, from that perspective, there are multiple pasts. But within any one give reality or timeline, it makes sense that there can only be, as you say, "one past."

And definitely: those outside our particular configuration of space/time must have a hellofa time trying to navigate our spatial-temporal coordinates. Though Ra nevertheless managed to do a most impressive job.

The past works in the same way.  In everyday life, we all accept one past (like Newtonian physics) but in actuality the past is subjectively chosen out of a multitude of possible pasts (like quantum physics).

Stop trying to blow my mind!

While macro events (crucifixion, dropping atomic bombs, the holocaust) are consensus fixed, the fluid probabilistic actual nature of the past is incredibly useful at the micro level.  Seth describes how to (essentially) change your own personal past to achieve healings.  Seth also describes how we can slide between consensus realities.  But since we are always ending up in a reality where everyone else believes the same thing that we believe, it doesn’t seem like we have shifted.

I read The Nature of Personal Reality and a second Seth book many years ago but the memory is quite dim. Though Seth had plenty of commentary on our space/time, incarnate reality, I wonder if perspectives like these are more applicable to his/her presumably time/space realm.

At any rate, I don't know enough to comment further.

Subjective perception is another rational explanation.  I agree.  It’s just not what Seth taught.  I have explored the Seth explanation, experienced personal reality shifts, and find it psychologically true, i.e. my inner truth-sense validates its authenticity.  If you are interested in exploring it, the Seth Material is the place to go.  There are forums and groups analyzing Seth in exactly the same way we analyze Ra here.  It is quit trippy.

If only there was time . . .

Whether or not I am operating, as your analogy goes, at the Newtonian level, I cannot say, but another colossal stumbling block for my consideration of this theory is this: an individual is an inextricable part of a collective.

Were an individual alone and isolated on their own planet, I could more readily see them being able, somehow, to actually change past objective events. But as an individual is necessarily situated in a context of great millions of other individuals, we are all interconnected, the greater collective entity dependent upon the placement and activity of its constituent parts.

Example: You made a horrible mistake two years ago by ending a relationship. So, you shift the past to not make that mistake and you are now back in the relationship? What of the two years between? What of all the people affected by that break up, the the different path your former partner took?

What if you drove away that day heated and got into an accident with another car, injuring another person. What, then, of their path?

The only way this makes any sense to me is if one timeline is completely, somehow, abandoned, and another timeline adopted. However, what, then of the abandoned timeline and the effect of ones departure from it upon everyone else?

Please know that I do not mean to attempt to invalidate your own personal experience. Who am I to speak for or against what you have discovered to be true through the laboratory of your own life experience.

Here is a head twister for you.  Seth and Ra agree on the nature of the Higher Self, it can be viewed from our perspective as our future self.  Fine and dandy.  But as the Higher Self interacts with its past selves (you and me and everyone) it changes the past.  Seth confessed, in the later books, to being Jane Robert’s future self.  And yet, at the same time, he said that he was different when he was Jane.  !!!

My mind was not meant to bend so far out of alignment.

Within the Law of One system one could say not that the higher self, itself, changes the past, but rather the incarnate entity chooses its path on a moment-to-moment basis with assistance and resources from the higher self.

This is a recursive looping relationship.  Each time you or I advance to become our Higher Self, and we go about the task of “helping” our past self, we create a different past self.  And then when that new past self advances on to become a future Higher Self, and he helps his past self, he creates yet another version of the past self.  Ad infinitum.

In that sense I could see that the higher self "changes" the past, but only as a function of the free will of that past self, the principal actor upon the stage. But nevertheless what you describe above is truly mind-bending.

I take enormous comfort in the fact that both past and future are probabilistic and in the existence of the multi-verse.  Because it means that the tiny spark of the creator known as “me” gets to explore all that I could want to explore in each lifetime.  Unlike the “choose your own adventure” approach of a single linear time, I get to explore all the options in the book.  Many “me’s” get to explore each branch.  I don’t have to regret past choices because I know that I am (100% absolute certainty) also exploring all those roads not taken.

That is a thought that tickles the senses.

But then what of sacrifice? The necessary releasing or giving up of something desired in order to serve? Through these parallel/multiple experiences, does one, then, get to hang onto every possibility? Would that not diminish the importance of choice? In choice we must necessarily release one way to embrace another. That's the whole point of it. We cannot have it both ways.

But, I speak of things outside my understanding and experience. At least my understanding in this particular version of me . . . : )