1 result for (book:ur1 AND session:704 AND stemmed:caus AND stemmed:effect)
[... 13 paragraphs ...]
I am simply suggesting that you become more natural. Because science has made an effective barrier to that method of approach, the power seems to reside in the gadgets rather than in man. Man no longer identifies with a storm, for example, and has lost his sense of relationship with it, and therefore his natural power over it. The same applies to storms of the psyche. The dream-art scientist, the true mental physicist, the complete physician — such designations represent the kinds of training that could allow you to understand the unknown, and therefore the known reality, and so become aware of the blueprints that exist behind the physical universe. The proof is in the pudding, of course. Largely, it seems that your techniques work a good deal of the time. Let us look at medicine, for instance.
(10:16.) Your physicians can point to lives saved by sophisticated technology. You can point to diseases stamped out because of inoculations or other preventive measures, such as the intake of certain vitamins, or sanitary procedures. It seems the worst kind of idiocy to suggest that the individual has any kind of effective protection against illness or disease. (Long pause.) Almost anyone can name a family member or friend who died 30 or 40 years ago of a disease that is now completely conquered. It seems that such lives would have been saved with modern procedures. In your society a medical checkup is a must every so often.
Again, many can thankfully praise a given doctor for discovering a disease condition “in time,” so that effective countering measures were taken and the disease was eliminated. You cannot know for sure, of course, what would have happened otherwise. You cannot know for sure what happened to those people who wanted to die. If they did not die of the disease, they may have “fallen prey” to an accident, or died in a war, or in a natural disaster.
[... 13 paragraphs ...]
3. In Note 6 for Session 681 I quoted Seth on his own ability to predict (which he seldom indulges), and on the subject in general. He also commented on predictions in a more amused way in ESP class for January 5, 1971; see the transcript in the Appendix of Seth Speaks: “Time, in your terms, is plastic. Most predictions are made in a highly distorted fashion; they can lead the public astray. Not only that, but when the predictors fall flat on their faces it does not help ‘The Cause.’ Reality does not exist in that fashion. You can tune into certain probabilities and predict ‘that they will occur,’ but free will always operates. No god in a giant ivory tower says ‘This will happen February 15 at 8:05.’; and if no god predicts, then I do not see the point of doing so myself.”
[... 2 paragraphs ...]