“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] The overconscientious self must be shown that the spontaneous self is the God self. If this is done it will add its strength to the purposes of the spontaneous self. Otherwise it will fight the spontaneous self, even to the death. [...]

It then set itself up against the spontaneous self, and determined to keep it within bounds. [...] When the overconscientious self learns that the spontaneous self is not unworthy, then success is permissible.

It is a relatively new idea to the overconscientious self, that the spontaneous self is good and a part of the god self. [...]

There must be self-sacrifice, to some degree self-mutilation. [...]

(Long pause.) Both religion and science see the self as primarily heir to flaws, decay. Only science’s Sinful Self operates in a framework in which there is no sacramental redemption. Science sees the world as rushing toward its own dissolution, and the self as the mechanistic system running down from the moment of its conception. [...]

The Sinful-Self concept causes you to expect the worst in any given situation. [...] Without the dictates of the Sinful Self, however, you can begin to sense the contours of the natural self, or the natural person. [...]

Now: for all of its seeming sophistication, the self as generally seen by science is only science’s interpretation of the Sinful Self in mechanistic terms. [...]

It is true that the Sinful Self carries with it a group of patterns or reactions; methods of dealing with problems, and so Ruburt’s beliefs along those lines have colored his reactions, his plans, his dealings with you through the years. In the past, however, those methods seemed to make sense: if you believe that the self is sinful or deceptive, then you must indeed set up barriers so that you allow expression while monitoring it very carefully at the same time. [...]

Chemically in particular, the dependence of the physical body and the self to the planetary environment is obvious. It is known to your scientists that the chemical relationship between the personal physical self, and the chemical environment of the not-self is intimately connected.

[...] Such a possibility, such a future development in no way involves a denial of self, a dissolving or sweeping away of self, an annihilation of self. [...]

The expanding self, ideally, would reach out beyond the arbitrary boundaries it has placed upon itself. Again, there just is not any particular boundary between what is self and what is not self. [...]

The point of difficulty is your panicky and protective huddling within the core of a limited self, and your fear to set aside the endless doors between self and what seems to be not self, that you yourself have erected.

The subconscious, and in fact all portions of the self with the exception of the ego, are capable of assimilating a wider area, so to speak, of action. Therefore to these other portions of the self, time has a much different essence than it has for the ego. [...] In relationship to action, and moment points, the ego is indeed that portion of the self which stands at the apex of the moment point, and is limited by the moment point. The ego is in this context the portion of the self which is utterly focused upon, and imprisoned by, the moment point.

[...] For while there is no real past or present or future within the spacious present, there is indeed an infinity of inward and outward; and again, of actions within actions, and there is no end to these actions for they are self-generating. The other portions of the inner self reach then even further in all directions, and they therefore envelop many moment points. To many portions of the inner self then, what you would call a moment would correspond to an almost limitless number of moments, for even physical time has no meaning without experience without action.

This should lead you to understand why physical time is basically meaningless to the subconscious, and why the inner self has at its command a knowledge of past lives and past endeavors; for the inner self, dear friends, these lives are not in the past, nor is the life of the ego necessarily present to the whole self.

[...] So now you will see what I meant when I spoke about the limitless self, for the whole self is not so bound. The whole self could and does perceive a limitless number of such moment points simultaneously. [...]

Each channel will represent a portion of the self, each one existing in a different dimension, and yet all part of the whole self, or the whole tape. [...] Mono One and Mono Two could be compared then to self one and two; self one and two here, however, in the context of the ego as self one and the subconscious as you know it as self two. [...]

None of these portions of the self are the whole self, obviously, and until the whole self is able to perceive its own parts simultaneously, then these seemingly separate portions of the self appear to themselves isolated to a large degree, and alone.

The identity, the basic identity, of these portions of the self, are carried by what you could compare to the subconscious that you know. This is difficult, but listen: in these portions of the self it is the subconscious that carries the burden of identity, and it is the ego whose experiences are of a dreamlike, plastic nature. [...] These portions of the self would seem topsy-turvy to you for this reason.

[...] The portions of the self are so constructed, so to speak, that when the stereophonic channel is turned on the selves then know their unity. Their various realities merge in the overall perceptions of the whole self.

[...] You are hardly familiar with all of the dream experiences of your dreaming self, and barely familiar with any of their implications. The dreaming self is to some considerable degree conscious of the self which we shall here term the probable self. The probable self is somewhat like a twin self to the dreaming personality, for neither the experiences of the dreaming self nor the probable self occur within the complete radius of physical reality.

There is a constant give and take between the probable self and the dreaming self, for much data is received, particularly by the dreaming personality from the probable self, or the self that experiences what the ego would term probable events.

The same can be said for the probable self. Were it not for the experience of this probable self and for the information which it gives, via the dreaming self to the subconscious, then it would be most difficult for the ego to come to any kind of a decision within the physical universe.

[...] Each portion of the self, while independent to some considerable degree, is nevertheless responsible to every other portion of the self, and each whole self, or individuality, is responsible to all others while it is still largely independent as to activity and decision.

(Long pause.) Those creative elements of personality must then to some extent or another finally communicate with the “Sinful Self” directly—sympathetically embrace that self (pause) as the part of personality that first accepted cultural and religious beliefs with all of their negative and positive influences. The more creative portion of personality must then realize that in a fashion it exists because the Sinful Self did. [...] The taboos within lose their power, and the Sinful Self is seen as (long pause)representing the stage of growth through which the self is passing (intently). [...]

(Her material this afternoon concerned “the reconciliation of the Sinful Self and its transformation into the innocent self that it was before it was undermined —indoctrinated—with negative beliefs.” [...] I said that even if the new innocence was achieved by the Sinful Self, it would be a different kind of innocence because it would contain all of the “Sinful Self’s earlier convolutions” as it went through its stages, striving toward that renewed innocence. [...]

[...] Then it was the innocent self, of course. [...] You actually have the innocent self in a kind of second stage, for now it has the experience of the Sinful Self behind it. [...]

[...] When Jane read her material of this afternoon to me, I thought she likened the Sinful Self’s renewal to reincarnation, meaning that she thought this renewal might account for many of our overt ideas of reincarnation—that at least some of our ideas about reincarnation were based upon our intuitive knowledge of the return of portions of one’s self to that earlier state of innocence—a rebirth, in other words, that we might translate into the idea of physical incarnation. [...]

[...] Consciousness of self, if you recall, is self-consciousness that still retains self as a part of action, self that perceives its existence within action. Ego, originally a part of this consciousness of self, splits off as previously explained, and attempts to dissociate itself from action, indeed to view action as a result of itself; that is, to view action as a result and not a cause.

[...] The inner self is aware of other realities. [...] Remember here the difference between consciousness of self and the ego, for the difference is important. The ego is but part of the self, part of the conscious self, but focused in one direction.

[...] But you are familiar only with the results of action as they appear within the physical field, as long as you insist upon viewing your physical universe with the eyes of the ego-self; for the ego-self attempts to cut itself off from that action of which it is a part, and in so attempting it loses contact with this larger reality.

[...] It does not apply to those other portions of the self, and it is through the inner self, through inner consciousness, that to some degree the nature of action can make itself known. [...]

There is no battle between the intuitive self and the conscious mind. [...] (Pause.) Sometimes it seems easier to avoid the frequent readjustments in behavior that self-examination requires. [...] Some contradict each other; the signals given to the body and to the inner self are not smoothly flowing or clear-cut, but a muddied jumble of counter-directions.

[...] You have given the inner self a faulty picture of reality. Since it is the function of the conscious mind to assess physical experience, it [the inner self] hasn’t been able to do its job properly. If the inner portions of the self were supposed to have that responsibility, then you would not need a conscious mind.

The inner self is embarked upon an exciting endeavor, in which it learns how to translate its reality into physical terms. [...] Deeper portions of the self always serve to remind it that this is not the case. When the conscious mind accepts too many false beliefs, particularly if it sees that inner self as a danger, then it closes out these constant reminders. [...]

Its beliefs about the nature of reality are then given to inner portions of the self. [...] The conscious mind sets the goals and the inner self brings them about, using all its facilities and inexhaustible energy.

[...] The spontaneous self dislikes the spelling chores and the bare typing, and the overly conscientious self fears the books success. [...] The book will be finished, but not too many demands will be made of either portion of the self on a daily basis.

[...] Finally we used her pendulum to learn that her overly conscientious self did not want a session this evening. Her spontaneous self did.

[...] The anger, for there is anger, is against the overly conscientious self, and he should know this. [...] The affection without demand must first lull the overly conscientious self, for it needs to be quieted and relaxed.

[...] Again, the spontaneous self opens and warms to affection, colors, movement, you see. The overly conscientious self is overly orderly.

Consider this analogy: The self as a moving circle, such as a Ferris wheel. [...] The whole self, or the whole wheel, is composed of many selves in various positions, as the many people who sit on the Ferris wheel. As the wheel turns you call the person or the self who faces the tree the ego, simply because this is the portion that faces physical reality, represented by our tree. But the self who faces the tree one moment is not the self that faces it the next moment, and the operator of the wheel is never in evidence, you see.

The inner ego is the self who drives the wheel with purpose; at the same time there are many other wheels and many spokes… Our moment point analogy will also help you here. The sleeping self will of course be considered the primary self from the standpoint of its own reality. I cannot emphasize too strongly the fact that all of these portions are self-conscious. [...]

When through training the ego becomes more aware of this inner self, the whole personality benefits. The whole self as it exists at any given time can be glimpsed through studying the actions of the physically-oriented ego, as seen in physical manipulation, and in studying the activities of the inner ego as seen in dream experiences. [...]

You do not know the self as it is within physical existence, and until you do you cannot hope to know what survives physical death, or what part of you is awake while the ego sleeps. [...] There are obviously portions of the self that never operate directly within physical reality.

The overly-disciplined self could not be hidden now. One part of the self could no longer be dominant at the expense of the other. The physical symptoms represented the conflict as the overly disciplined self again tried to take over the reins. [...]

[...] The hidden and bedrock, latent, strong conscientious self then rose up and took over control, and would not give the spontaneous self then back any of the reins.

[...] He thought of the spontaneous self, his spontaneous self, as joyful, free, intensely creative, but also as somewhat evil, frightening, unreasoning, and liable to lead him to disaster.

He thought of the overly conscientious self as stern, good, boring, constricting and uncreative, but very safe. [...] He did not understand that discipline can be an aid to creativity, and that the spontaneous self is good. [...]

(“Is the Sinful Self that closely connected with the physical self, then, or did other parts of Ruburt’s personality bring about the symptoms because they knew of the beliefs of the Sinful Self?”

[...] The Sinful Self is quite as evident there as it is in the Catholic Church. [...] For that matter, such material often simply restates the entire concept of the Sinful Self in different form. [...]

The Sinful Self was highly suspicious of any such activity. [...] Ruburt is working at all angles of the problem at other levels of consciousness now, and the Sinful Self is beginning to feel a new sense of give-and-take. [...]

All in all, those results are considered by the Sinful Self, now, as regrettable but necessary, as perhaps the use of overly severe discipline, or the use of punishment “for the personality’s own good”—all of which makes perfect sense within the belief structure of the Sinful Self and the larger philosophical structure of Christianity itself. [...]

Such systems distort the very nature of idealism by placing the ideal in such an exalted position that it can never be attained, for by giving up the self you have you are to attain instead a wholly pure, wholly loving, idealized, spiritual self. This self will love each other fellow being without reservations, distinctions, or judgment. This self is to miraculously appear as the old self is annihilated. [...]

[...] The concentration upon self-betrayal and worldly corruption offers no escape. Expression becomes meaningless under such conditions, not trusting the structure of the self, then the self’s expression is denied. [...] Yet the new self never comes—not the promised, overly idealized self that feels a godly love without distinctions. [...]

[...] You have a need to express your self—and I am repeating the word “express” quite purposefully (with a smile). You must feel that you are a self, and that you can express that self in the world that you know.

In such situations you are taught that the self you have is not only flawed, but a facade—a fake self that cannot be trusted, and whose expression must be largely denied. You are told to give up the self to the leader of the group—the guru, the master, the father, the authority by whatever name.

The fabric of the present self is interwoven with these reincarnational “pasts,” and from them the present self draws unconsciously from its own bank of personality characteristics, activities, and insights. [...]

The whole self is obviously the sum of these characteristics, and more. [...] In simple terms the whole self contains male and female characteristics, finely tuned together, blended so that true identity can then arise — for it cannot, when one group of characteristics must be emphasized over the other group, as it must be during your present physical existence.

The projection of the man’s anima, or hidden female self, upon [his] relations is quite natural, and allows him not only to understand them better but to relate with the other female existences of his own. [...] Symbolically speaking, the two together represent the whole self with its diverse abilities, desires, and characteristics.

At the end of the reincarnational cycle, the whole self is far more developed than it was before. [...] It is not a matter, then, of a whole self splitting in half, and then simply returning to itself.

This sense of division within the self forces you to think that there is a remote, spiritual, wise, intuitive inner self, and a bewildered, put-upon, spiritually ignorant, inferior physical self, which happens to be the one you identify with. Many of you believe, moreover, that the physical self’s very nature is evil, that its impulses, left alone, will run in direct opposition to the good of the physical world and society, and fly in the face of the deeper spiritual truths of inner reality. The inner self then becomes so idealized and so remote that by contrast the physical self seems only the more ignorant and flawed. [...] You must, therefore, begin to celebrate your own beings, to look to your own impulses as being the natural connectors between the physical and the nonphysical self. [...]

[...] There are many schools for spiritual advancement that teach you to “get rid of the clutter of your impulses and desires,” to shove aside the self that you are in search of a greater idealized version. First of all, the self that you are is ever-changing and never static. There is an inner self in the terms of those definitions, but that inner self, which is the source of your present being, speaks through your impulses. [...] You must trust the self that you are, now.

Many of you keep searching for some seemingly remote spiritual inner self that you can trust and look to for help and support, but all the while you distrust the familiar self with which you have such intimate contact. You set up divisions between portions of the self that are unnecessary.

[...] You must understand that the spiritual self also exists within the physical self in the same fashion. The inner self is not remote, either — not divorced from your most intimate desires and affairs, but instead communicates through your own smallest gesture, through your smallest ideal.

When you look for “what is wrong,” you are feeding self-disapproval. [...] Ruburt recognized self-disapproval today (after her nap). [...] The self-disapproval causes the condition, however, and not the other way around. [...]

[...] I have been rereading the latest sessions on self-disapproval, and these seem to have made the difference. Jane has also been working on her feelings of self approval and disapproval, and credits her efforts with her improvements.)

Self-disapproval in that context became a virtue, for indeed survival depended, it seemed, upon constant self and tribal evaluation. [...]

(Long pause at 9:41.) Your religions have been largely patterned from such self-disapproving bases. [...] The loss of a real, sensed, appreciated identification with nature has been largely responsible, however, for man’s attitude that self-disapproval is somehow a virtue.

If you think of yourselves honestly and deeply when you are alone, then you must realize that what you are you can not see in a mirror, and the self that you see in a mirror is but a dim reflection of your true reality. [...] You do not see your inner self in the mirror. [...] Within you, within the selves that you know, is the prime identity, the whole inner self. [...]

[...] The inner self knows who it is. The inner self communicates with your present personality. [...]

It is true there are no limitations to the self, and in one respect you can say that the self reaches out and encompasses the environment. [...]

[...] You can consider the whole self as an onion if you wish. [...]

There are many portions of the self, as you know. [...] These portions of the self are all simultaneous; in various stages of consciousness you become aware of other portions of the self, and an I identifies itself with one or another of these.

Any real psychology must take all these levels of the self into consideration, for the physically-oriented self that you know is largely formed by the subjective self of which you know so little.

[...] You must remember that all of these portions of the self exist at once, and that the whole inner self knows them as a part of its own identity. [...]

Your physical personalities as you know them are projecting personalities from the whole inner self. But the projecting fragments themselves, you see, do not come and leave unaffected, but grow and mature and develop, really, other portions of the self in continuing extensions. [...]

[...] He endowed the nail with consciousness and self-awareness. [...] The nail, then, is indeed filled with its own sense of self-approval.

I am mentioning this only to stress the fact that self-delight and self-approval (long pause) are natural characteristics — characteristics that actually make your entire physical world, and world of experience, possible.

It is very unfortunate, therefore, when adults inadvertently undermine a child’s sense of self-approval. [...] He can then determine to change his behavior while still saving his self-respect.

[...] (Long pause, then quite slowly:) All creatures are also born, then, with a keen sense of self-approval.