“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Today Jane read all day, finishing up J. B. Priestley’s book, Man and Time, which she liked very much. She had read nothing by Priestley before, nor by Dunne, mentioned extensively in the Priestley book. After supper this evening Jane told me she thought Seth had come through twice, briefly, as she went about her daily chores before the session. Both instances concerned the Priestley book, which had excited her.

He can use it, use the knowledge obtained therein, learn from its mistakes, and advance. But this individual as seen by Priestley at this particular point is somewhat limited, still, by this time one. Time one is available to him, though not necessarily as a series of moments, one after another. From this he is free, but he is still somewhat bound by those events, though he may learn from them. According to Priestley, while the individual therefore is free from successive moments, he still does not have easily available, at fingertips so to speak, any information or realizations from time three. I am using Priestley’s terms here.

Now. Priestley puts it somewhat differently but the results are the same. According to him the consciousness, the individual consciousness of time one, becomes something else at physical death, and the consciousness that is part of time two in physical life becomes dominant in the next existence. There is one large difference here between us however, and I believe an important one. Priestley’s individual, after death, with his dominant time two consciousness, has available to him what was time one during physical life.

Priestley’s concept here becomes more limiting than he realized. At this point Dunne overtakes him precisely where he and Dunne disagree. For once having hypothesized times one, two and three, Dunne continues onward as is the case, and Priestley simply stops here in this particular respect.

(The second half of the session was held for Alma Priestley, of Clearwater, Florida. [...] Before the session Jane reread an earlier letter from Alma Priestley, and the carbon of her answering letter in June, 1971.)

[...] (For Alma Priestley.)

Priestley was right also to some extent here. These probabilities do occur somewhere, but they will occur to a self that Priestley nor Dunne ever imagined—a self who exists simultaneously with any given individual, and who is a part of him; but a self that he will never know while he is within your particular system.

[...] Some will not, and this is where, again, our friends Priestley and Dunne fall short.

[...] Now this dimension exists in a reality which Priestley nor Dunne even began to examine.

[...] This was some time before Jane began reading Dunne and Priestley.)

[...] Earlier in the evening we had noted a similarity in some of the comments on her manuscript with J.B. Priestley’s ideas on time. Jane had the idea that Priestley and our unknown commentator were contemporaries. Priestley we believe to be 70. [...]

[...] There is a connection here in the above impressions with Priestley, yes.

(Jane has been reading J.B. Priestley’s book, Time and Man, recently. [...] She remarked that tonight Seth had elaborated on a few statements Mr. Priestley had made; that is, Seth was not paraphrasing, but carrying ideas further.

[...] The last part of the dream as given above ended up, for example, with a sequence involving J. P. Priestley, author of Man and Time, an excellent book that I had just finished reading. [...]