“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

^* In Jane/Seth’s The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, which was published in 1981, I wrote: “Seth maintains that Framework 2, or inner reality, contains the creative source from which we form all events, and that by the proper focusing of attention we can draw from that vast subjective medium everything we need for a constructive, positive life in Framework 1, or physical reality.” Seth has a lot to say about Frameworks 1 and 2 in Mass Events. For example: “Those unique intents that characterize each individual exist first in Framework 2, then — and with birth, those intents immediately begin to impress the physical world of Framework 1.”

[...] Generally speaking, you have handled such situations well, and what I said about your activities in Framework 2 does still apply.

[...] “It’s surprising,” I said, meaning Seth’s comments about our doing well in Framework 2, including the publishing angle. [...]

[...] The invisible [vault of] Framework 2 contains endless patterns that change as, say, clouds do — that mix and merge to form your psychological climate. [...] In those terms your thoughts mix and match with others in Framework 2, creating mass patterns that form the overall psychological basis behind world events. Again, however, Framework 2 is not neutral, but automatically inclined toward what we will here term good or constructive developments. [...] Constructive or “positive” feelings or thoughts are more easily materialized than “negative” ones, because they are in keeping with Framework 2’s characteristics.²

In simple terms, your body has an invisible counterpart in Framework 2. During life that counterpart is so connected with your own physical tissues, however, that it can be misleading to say that the two — the visible and invisible bodies — are separate. In the same way that your thoughts have a reality in Framework 2, and only for the sake of a meaningful analogy, thoughts could be said to be the equivalent, now, of objects; for in Framework 2 thoughts and feelings are far more important even than objects are in physical reality.

[...] In other words, they contain psychic components that flow from Framework 2 into Framework 1.

Dictation: You must understand that in a manner of speaking, Framework 2 is on the one hand an invisible version of the physical universe. [...]

[...] You must believe that in Framework 2 all of the necessary procedures involved in his normal walking are now happening, and believe that improvements and obvious states of that process will occur in Framework 1. The evidence will appear in Framework 1 as you believe it. [...]

(10:41.) If your goals fit in with overall natural purposes, you can do anything at all with your consciousness, while still maintaining ordinary contact in Framework 1. (Whispering:) I suggest that perhaps once a day in as creatively playful a way as possible, without trying too hard, in naps or when you are reading your statements, or anytime, to simply try to get the feeling of Framework 2.

The fact that you even sent books to artists and art institutions shows that you have changed your attitudes in Framework 1, thereby opening resources in Framework 2 that did not exist, practically speaking, earlier. [...]

[...] But I knew that the suggestions had penetrated as never before, and I thought they had reached their goal in Framework 2 in a way that I could be aware of. [...]

“Then, in a private session held on the evening of September 17, 1977, Seth came through with a very exciting concept called ‘Framework 1 and Framework 2.’ Jane and I were so struck by the practical, far-reaching implications of this proposition that we began a concerted effort to put it to use in daily life. Briefly and very simply, Seth maintains that Framework 2, or inner reality, contains the creative source from which we form all events, and that by the proper focusing of attention we can draw from that vast subjective medium everything we need for a constructive, positive life in Framework 1, or physical reality.”

[...] The invisible [vault of] Framework 2 contains endless patterns that change as, say, clouds do — that mix and merge to form your psychological climate. [...] In those terms your thoughts mix and match with others in Framework 2, creating mass patterns that form the overall psychological basis behind world events. Again, however, Framework 2 is not neutral, but automatically inclined toward what we will here term good or constructive developments. [...] Constructive or ‘positive’ feelings or thoughts are more easily materialized than ‘negative’ ones because they are in keeping with Framework 2’s characteristics.”

[...] Framework 2² has been a rather fascinating but mainly (underlined) hypothetical framework, in that neither of you have really been able to put it to any perceivable use in your terms. [...]

[...] The two of you operating together, however, then came up with an idea — an important one — that allows you to interpret the Framework 2 material in your own ways. [...]

[...] In Framework 2 those freer associative patterns are everywhere potent. [...] The organization of Framework 2 is then highly associative.

All of that is known in Framework 2. There, personal and world associations form their own kinds of patterns. [...] They automatically pull to you what you need from Framework 2, drawing out all of the associations that you need in order to have certain events occur.

[...] You use Framework 2 beautifully, both of you, in that regard. Your intents insert plans for action in Framework 2. Ruburt has had some results. [...]

(A note: I don’t really understand why any sort of Framework 2 connection should arise involving us and Spain, however—the question arose as I typed the rest of the session after writing the notes on page 110-111. [...] Why is Framework 2 offering us these events?)

Several important projects are clicking together in Framework 2, and Ruburt feels as if some dimensions in space-time are warped. The effect of events in Framework 2 is constant, but there are moments in your terms of particular acceleration, where “work” done there seems to quiver the edges of your reality in Framework 1. This is such a time.

[...] It cannot harm either of you to try it, and it is this: try to take it for granted that distractions have a meaning in Framework 2 that is not as yet obvious in Framework 1. Oftentimes events that seem distracting, annoying, or that happen out of context, actually are parts of other patterns, larger ones that are part of Framework 2 activity. [...]

In your cases, changes of attitude have begun to alter Framework 2, so that a corner is turned. [...]

[...] He will of course have other and more extensive such experiences, but overall the mental work is now beginning to be strong enough in your framework, so that more and more results, in your terms, will show themselves.

[...] For myself, I wanted Seth’s comments on the Spanish Framework 2 connections that he detailed last session, re Ryerson, Macdonnel, our books being translated, and the card from Carlos Smith; I wondered what had initiated any Framework 2 connections for us via Spain, since we had no interests of note there.

In Framework 2 your abilities from birth seek their fulfillment, not at your expense, not despite your own best interests. [...] In Framework 2, effortlessly all patterns are set into motion at your birth, opening up innumerable probable pathways, each leading to the best fulfillment of your potential, so that events, chance encounters, everything works together.

[...] This was before Seth began the Frameworks 1 and 2 material, I believe. [...]

[...] Sometimes they provide a backbone, an impetus, a direction, a framework, in which people not specifically gifted can find a place, sometimes. [...]

[...] If you can think of your body as existing primarily in Framework 2, that might help you separate yourselves from negative beliefs connected with Framework 1, for by such a mental change of view you take the body out of that context.

[...] I would like you to try to feel the energy of Framework 2 in your daily lives, by reminding yourselves of its existence rather frequently—and again, by looking for hints and clues of its existence, for when you do they appear. When you do not, it can seem as if you are locked in Framework 1. Look to all events then, and for their interweaving quality.

[...] It does take some time to understand why the pendulum answers as it does, but it will be responding not only to your question but to the greater framework and the emotional circumstances connected with it. [...]

[...] As long as you are dealing with Framework 1 only, there will seem to be no platform of an objective or subjective nature that will allow you to view reality in any other way than the way it appears to be. [...]

[...] The world of normal communication I call Framework 1, while Framework 2 represents that inner world, in which indeed all time is simultaneous, and actions that might take years in normal time can happen in the blinking of an eyelid in Framework 2.

[...] Negative beliefs can block the passageways between Framework 1 and Framework 2. It is an excellent idea for those in any kind of difficulty to do the following simple exercise.

Briefly, Framework 1 deals with all the events of which you are normally conscious.

Framework 2 involves all of those spontaneous processes that go on beneath your conscious attention. [...]

For Seth, Framework 1 is simply a term representing the everyday, linear, conscious “working reality” we take for granted, the one in which “time” and events automatically unfold in moment after undeniable moment. [...] Beyond Framework 1, however, exists Framework 2, and it represents the great timeless or simultaneous spacious present that’s so dearly a manifestation of All That Is. All of our dreams, plans, thoughts, actions, and choices live in Framework 2; all flow from Framework 2 into Framework 1 according to our beliefs.

There followed many sessions, both regular and private (or deleted, as we sometimes call them), in which Seth discussed Frameworks 1 and 2. As can happen when we’re consciously too close to a deep-seated situation, some little time passed before Jane and I realized the obvious: It wasn’t that we were unable to tune into Framework 2, say, for help in effecting a healing for her in the joint reality we’d created in Framework 1—but that in physical reality we were drawing from Framework 2 exactly what we wanted to, even if often on unconscious or unwitting levels. [...] As I’ve tried to show in these essays, we didn’t suspend our efforts to reach into that larger framework. [...] In those terms, communication between frameworks is unstoppable, really: I think that if one could halt the interchanges, physical death would result. [...]

But if the interactions between or among frameworks exist for everybody, in our terms, then as far as I’m concerned they exist for each thing as well—and I do mean the so-called “inanimate.” (This isn’t the place to go into it, but Seth maintains that for many reasons we arbitrarily decide what’s living and nonliving.) Each reincarnational self, each counterpart self and probable self has its complement of frameworks. [...] So, “probably,” do most of the far-out probable realities one can imagine—for I won’t go so far as to deny that some probable realities may exist without such framework structures. [...] But in each case where those framework interactions operate, they help each creation, each presence, each essence or vital principle fulfill “a larger picture that the conscious mind may not be able presently to perceive.” In ways I can’t even begin to describe here, all frameworks must ultimately be joined within the ineffable context of All That Is.

I should note that Seth has briefly—very briefly—referred to the existence of Frameworks 3 and 4. He says, I believe, that initially his encounters with Jane take place in a Framework 3 environment. It’s my own guess that Framework 4 might involve our communication—through the first three frameworks—with some of those nonhuman probable realities I mentioned not long ago.

Your doubts and fears have their effect, but they do not connect with Framework 2 as securely as faith does, for they do not fit in with the overall, curious and open, courageous elements characteristic of Framework 2’s activities. Comparatively speaking, a small number of clearly felt connections with Framework 2 can undo a year’s doubts. [...]

[...] I suggested that she forego the session, but once again she said she wanted to get something on Framework 2, etc. [...]

[...] I want to point out the efficiency of faith when you feel it, so take advantage of those moments when you feel faith strong in yourself, for at such times you connect with Framework 2 most securely.

[...] Yet leaving the church framework, Ruburt fastened upon the mind as opposed to the intuitions. [...] Without a framework to contain that kind of experience, the growing girl began to squash it. Mystical experience became acceptable only through poetry or art, where it was accepted as creative, but not real enough to get him into trouble, or to upset the “new” framework. The new framework threw aside such superstitious nonsense. [...]

(Intently:) Ruburt here chose the writing structure, and has stuck to it as unswervingly as he once stuck to the church, yet always seeking a new framework. [...] Your guidance and strength were his framework. When it became apparent that you were also human, and not a framework, he became frightened. When you encouraged the emergence and expression of his mysticism, then you could no longer act, he felt, as a framework to contain it. [...]

He leaped, however, from the framework of the church into another framework, one in which mysticism was experienced secondhand, under the guise of artistic production. Idea Construction⁷ literally shattered that framework.

(Pause.) For various reasons already given, concerning your joint relationship, and your own purposes (to me), it has taken some time for a newer, suitable framework to form itself — one in which Ruburt is free to pursue mystic experience in a practical structure; one in which unconventionality of thought is allowed to continue freely. He felt that this could outgrow the framework of his art, as it did that of the church. The physical symptoms⁸ served quite literally as a framework in which spontaneity was to some extent at least allowed a mental and psychic freedom, until he felt secure.

You have agreed that Framework 2 exists, that it is helpful. [...] Ruburt fears at times he cannot impress Framework 2 properly, and becomes impatient with himself. [...]

[...] Jane had no questions for Seth other than her usual desire that he continue his material on Frameworks 1 and 2. I didn’t either, not having taken the time to focus on any.

[...] It is beyond all questions of beginning and ending, for out of its framework spring such concepts and realities. [...]

[...] The ordinary events of each day are overloaded with coincidences and significances that are nearly invisible because they are so taken for granted, and they are so multitudinous in number, and fit so perfectly into the framework of the days.

Again as with master events, we’re dealing with a different framework of action entirely, where the Mona Lisa is “more real” than the physical properties that compose it, which is not to deny the validity of the canvas, say. But to discuss Seth or Seth’s ideas primarily from the true-or-false framework is the same thing as considering the Mona Lisa only from the validity of the physical properties of paint and canvas; very, very limiting. [...]

We have to go beyond that—the point of problem-solving or problem-focus —back to stressing the creative larger-than-life aspects, otherwise all we have is a better problem-solving framework. [...]

To do that, I have to drop those old feelings of responsibility as a primary focus (to get the ideas out quickly so they can help people, etc.) because those feelings strain the Seth-book framework particularly when I demand that in each book Seth answers all questions and so forth. [...]

[...] The strong ideas of responsibility are limiting too; they put you in a less creative framework, stifle creativity. [...]

Paul’s activities over the weekend, yours, the time of your call, the fact that he did have the time today, when ordinarily he would not—all of these issues were juggled in Framework 2, to give you, now, the best possible solution, given the conditions in Framework 1, with the desires and beliefs involved.

[...] That belief will always bring the best possible developments from Framework 2. Ruburt should concentrate on his creative work. You should both help reinforce each other’s beliefs, in the actuality of Framework 2, and in the safety in which your existence is couched. [...]

[...] In many ways, we found the situation to be quite similar to that involving the recent visits of Carol and Fred, from Canada, and of Hal and Rusty, from Lancaster, Pennsylvania—in that it seemed the necessary inner workings to bring about the ideal situation had been carried out in Framework 2. More on this can be added in later sessions. [...]

[...] I’d say we both lost much confidence in the idea of Frameworks 1 and 2 that evening; I still feel that way to some degree; at the same time Jane has felt better. [...]

When the two of you work with Framework 2 then, say, Jane one and Rob one can help each other help Jane two and Rob two also, so that you add to your benefits. In Framework 2 both of your intents and natures are known. That is the source of your physical existence—the source of your impulses to begin with, and the more you learn to trust Framework 2 the easier it is for your natural selves to express themselves. [...]

[...] She’s been rereading Seth’s material for her on Framework 2, the necessity for trust in herself, etc. Both of us have been making pronounced efforts—although that’s not the right word for it—to trust that our challenges will be taken care of in Framework 2. I think I’ve had some good success there.

You can request before you sleep that you rest mainly in Framework 2. Ruburt’s body has been trying to relax all day. [...]

If you keep Framework 2 in mind, much of these stages can be vastly minimized, and the work with hypnosis that I suggested gives you such a method of inserting data, here, that accelerates motion in Framework 2, and greatly cuts down the time and effort involved in Framework 1. Of course, (with wry amusement) if you each are convinced that the venture was important-enough in your lives, and would get the results, you would have clamored to begin such experiments.

[...] He allowed himself no leeway, or very little, and in that framework the body was limited but predictable.

Now that old framework is shunted aside. [...]

[...] I suggested the use of suggestion through the framework of hypnosis simply because such techniques can be like mental vitamin pills. [...]

(11:35.) Give us a moment… Framework 2 represents the inner sphere of reality, the inner dimensions of existence, that gives your world its own characteristics. The energy and power that keeps you alive, that fuels your thoughts — and also the energy that lights your cities — all have their origins in Framework 2. The same energy that leaps into practical use when you turn on your television sets also allows you to tune into the daily experienced events of your lives.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FRAMEWORK 2. A CREATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE MEDIUM IN WHICH PHYSICALLY-ORIENTED CONSCIOUSNESS RESIDES, AND THE SOURCE OF EVENTS

(11:13.) Next chapter (4): “The Characteristics of Framework 2.” [...]

To parallel these sessions, it would be nice if the two of you kept Framework 2 in mind, and utilized it with a bit more confidence, and became alert again to those “coincidences” that always appear in current experience.

The encounters themselves occur in a Framework 3 environment. That framework of course, again in terms of an analogy, exists another step away from your own Framework 2.³ I do not want to get into a higher-or-lower hierarchy here, but the frameworks represent spheres of action. [...]

[...] We hardly expected Seth to discuss Framework 3, though, since we’re still assimilating his material on Frameworks 1 and 2.

These frameworks, while I speak of them separately, exist one within the other, and each one impinges upon the other. [...]

3. This is the second time that Seth has very briefly referred to Framework 3. See Note 3 for the 814th session.

[...] In the framework of the dream, then, you and mankind seemingly could not succeed. [...] It simply means it is not structured in the usual way—and it even means that in Framework 1 it cannot be proven—for what can be proven in Framework 1 must always be relative.

(Certainly the Richard Bach-Eleanor Friede affair is reactivating a probability that was available, of course—or one could say that Jane decided to draw from Framework 2 those certain elements to work with in Framework 1. Interesting to see what happens.

The impulse allowed Framework 2 to operate, pulling in new probabilities. [...]

[...] The most important point is to cultivate your faith in Framework 2, and for Ruburt to realize that the releasing feelings in his body signify the fact that his body is indeed releasing.