All violence is violence against yourself.
My understanding of the Link Between Violence and Self
“Violence and Self” encapsulates a profound perspective that resonates throughout Seth’s session. The central theme revolves around the interconnectedness of violence and one’s own being. Seth challenges conventional notions of violence by positing that every act of aggression, whether large or small, intentional or inadvertent, has a reverberating effect on the individual.
Seth’s teachings prompt readers to contemplate the intricate web of existence, where even the smallest acts of violence are portrayed as diminishing one’s own essence.
The metaphorical example of ripping off a fly’s wing or purposefully stepping on an ant serves as a vivid illustration of this interconnectedness. Each action, regardless of its scale, is portrayed as a self-inflicted wound, highlighting the intimate link between one’s behavior and the state of their own being.
This perspective encourages us to reflect on our actions and consider the broader implications of violence, fostering a sense of responsibility for the energy they contribute to the world. It goes beyond a mere condemnation of destructive behaviors, inviting us to recognize the potential for self-harm inherent in any act of violence.
The notion that violence is always used creatively introduces a layer of complexity to this perspective. It challenges the dichotomy1 between destruction and creation, suggesting that violence, when deeply understood, is intricately tied to the creative forces within the universe. This philosophical stance prompts a reevaluation of societal norms and a deeper exploration of the motivations behind violent actions.
The Link Between Violence and Self, a Seth session
This text was given in one of the (unpublished) class sessions.
Seth: “You were both propelled into the war seemingly because of circumstances and you both died violently, separately in the war. You in the ruins of a Cathedral in Germany and she later in France.
In this life, therefore, you are against war, extremely dissatisfied with the current establishment and resentful because you fought the war that was to end all wars and now realize that no war will end all wars and that only peace will end all wars. Hence you will not accept a status in which you carry a gun. Now I do not believe, though this now, understand, is in the realm of probabilities, that you will go into the service but that other conditions will serve to prevent this happening. This is, however, in the realm of probabilities and the seesaw of your own emotions could definitely affect the future reality in that regard.
In the last war you were indeed involved with an ambulance for you were then an intern dying before you ever reached the status of a doctor. And our friend here, (Sue) was a nurse. Your own emotions were not clear, however, you were simply swept willy-nilly by the circumstances in which you were involved. Those experiences, however, crystallized your opinions so that in this life you know where you stand.
(To Bud:) Now I have a word for our new friend. The one that Ruburt meant in your establishment. Violence will always be used creatively. You cannot be destructive even when you try. Beyond that however, in the meantime, the violence that you do you do to yourself. You are a part of All That Is, of all the nature that you know and experience, of the world that you know and even a part of the world that you know that you do not like.
If you rip off the wing of a fly you are yourself, less. If you purposefully now, or with malice, step upon an ant then to the extent of your malice, you step upon yourself all unknowing. Violence will always be used creatively. If you do not understand this, and at your present rate of development you do not, then any violence is violence against yourself.
This applies to each of you for when you think in terms of violence you think in terms of malice or aggression. Despite all mankind does he cannot really work any destruction but while he believes in destruction then to that extent he minimizes what he is and must work harder to use creativity.
(To Linda:) There was no guilt implied, however, in that particular life you killed others and you knew, this inner self knew, that you must therefore experience the other side of the picture. If you were filled with thoughts of physical might and thought in terms of power then for your own development you must experience weakness and learn compassion. Now true compassion is strength but you did not know that and so you had to teach it to yourself.
(During break a discussion of entities returning after the war.)
Those who hate war, hate war so thoroughly, because they fought in the last great war and understand the nature of that violence. Now they come back and speak for peace and their parents cannot understand them. They survived that hell and survived to make their pile. They did not learn that much from their experience. They put the war behind them and came back to raise the __high in whatever country they lived and they were quick to pile up material possessions to make up for the years that they had lost.
They did not, therefore, use that experience for spiritual value but those who died in the war came back as their sons and daughters and looked them in the face and said, “What have you done?” We gave our blood and what did you make of it and is this the peace and goodwill for which we gave our lives?
ESP November 3, 1970 ~ unpublished
Final personal notes
The overarching perspective presented by Seth is a profound exploration of the intricate relationship between violence, personal identity, and the cyclical nature of existence. Set against the backdrop of past lives and the echoes of war, the narrative weaves a tapestry of spiritual insights, urging us to reevaluate our understanding of violence and its far-reaching consequences.
In a world where WW3 feels like it’s around the corner, with fights in Ukraine (Russia involved) and the Israeli army taking on Hamas in Gaza, Seth’s message might seem hard to grasp. But the timeless and all-encompassing truth is still there for us to think about in these tough and gloomy times.
Dirk Bosman
All images are artificial generated by Dirk Bosman and licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0
- A “dichotomy” refers to a division or contrast between two things that are or are considered to be entirely different or opposed. It highlights a clear distinction or separation between two opposing concepts, ideas, or qualities. In the context of the extended perspective on the text, the mention of “dichotomies” refers to the challenge of conventional distinctions, such as the traditional separation between destruction and creation, encouraging a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between seemingly opposing forces. ↩︎
