“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(I hadn’t deliberately planned that those notes would do that, yet in retrospect I was glad they had—especially in the unprecedented response Jane was getting from her Sinful Self. Her paper was very well done, and would make fascinating material in an autobiography, for instance. The Sinful Self’s material is too long and complicated to describe here, except to say that it contains the Sinful Self’s own view of reality and its relationship to Jane’s background and work, it’s regrets, its defensive attitudes, its questions, and its genuine puzzlement that man has for so long —perhaps for most of history, indeed—persisted in the creation of and reliance upon such entities as the Sinful Self.

These often involve responses to session material. Ruburt’s message from “The Sinful Self” is a case in point, for it represents a response both to my material and to a question of your own. It gives a clear declaration of the Sinful Self’s attitudes in the past, and its new growing recognition that those attitudes have been unfortunate. The Sinful Self has also raised some questions that are pertinent, and with which we will shortly deal.

(9:14 PM. It’s Friday evening as I type this. Seth’s suggestion that Jane ask the Sinful Self for its comments of the female sex and sin were very acute—for today Jane has received several pages of material from the Sinful Self on that subject. Again, well done, and not finished yet. Right now she’s watching a disaster movie—The Poseidon Adventure—as I finish work.)

[...] For some time there was no direct challenge, however, made to the Sinful Self once Ruburt left the church. His creative abilities were growing and developing, his concepts enlarging, but he was for some time so convinced of science’s viewpoint that the ideas of the Sinful Self were looked upon as unworthy and superstitious. [...] To go ahead creatively, forming new versions of a spiritual reality, to state that man and his impulses were good, brought him finally into direct conflict with the old beliefs of the Sinful Self, whose value system was based upon the idea that the self was indeed sinful, not to be trusted. [...]

(Now I did mention to Jane perhaps the overriding question I have, and have often puzzled about: the intensity of her personality’s response to the idea of the Sinful Self. Though, as I said, I didn’t think of her Sinful Self as something entirely separate from other portions of her personality, but as a part of them. Why didn’t the “Sinful Self” get the message that it’s gone too far, and back off at least somewhat so that the whole personality had room to breathe—to begin physical recovery, in other words? [...]

[...] The Sinful Self identification is a particularly unfortunate one, for to “be good” means that the child must consider itself bad or sinful. [...]

(I added that I’d had no idea that the idea of the Sinful Self occupied that prominent and basic a position in her life. It was beginning to look as if the Sinful Self concept occupied the central position in her beliefs. It would make a lot of sense, I said, if it were true, and would account for things like an obsession with work, giving up other life activities, etc.—all done in a disguised attempt to appease that Sinful Self that merrily carried on year after year.... “But in a funny way that may be okay,” I mused, “because if that’s it, we now know where we can grab hold of the Sinful Self, once we know what we’re doing, not groping around in a morass of suppositions and speculations.”)

Ruburt found great comfort in the church as a young person, for if it created within its members the image of a Sinful Self, it also of course provided a steady system of treatment—a series of rituals that gave the individual some sense of hope the Sinful Self could be redeemed, as in most of Christianity’s framework through adherence to certain segments of Christian dogma. [...]

In the light of this discussion, now, that self was as unrealistic at its end of the spectrum as the Sinful Self was at the other, for Ruburt felt that he was supposed to demonstrate a certain kind of superhuman feat, not only managing on occasion to uncover glimpses of man’s greater abilities, but to demonstrate these competently at the drop of a hat, willingly at the request of others. At the same time he believed he was the Sinful Self, and that expression was highly dangerous—so between those two frameworks, the psychological organization, he operated as best he could, still seeking toward the natural value fulfillment that was his natural heritage. [...]

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. [...]

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. [...]

The barriers become unnecessary when you realize that the self is not sinful. I use the word “sinful” in Ruburt’s case because of the early church connections in particular. [...]

[...] The Sinful Self was taught to distrust its own nature and expression, believing that that nature, by virtue of original sin, was flawed—but in a tragic fashion—literally damned by God, of course, because of the sins of the forefathers. [...]

(Long pause at 8:58.) The Sinful Self obviously is not a burden that Ruburt carries alone, but one inherent in your civilization. [...] (Long pause.) In terms of goodness, you can certainly tell the Sinful Self that health and vitality are indeed not only good, but in their way they represent the spiritual attributes. [...]

[...] (Long pause.) One small note: again, the Sinful Self should be assured it is good, it is not sinful. [...]

[...] 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. [...]

Again, it is important that you not accuse the Sinful Self (which I took to be a reference to our discussion last Friday). [...] (Pause.) It deepens the Sinful Self’s sense of isolation. [...] The Sinful Self did not have a free hand, for example, bringing about physical difficulties all by itself. [...] The Sinful Self is not the “villain.” [...]

(For the last two days Jane hasn’t worked on her paper from the Sinful Self —the first break she’s taken from it since she began to receive it 13 days ago, on June 17. [...] Yet as I listened to her I felt that at times the Sinful Self seemed to almost be trying to put the blame for her symptoms off on other portions of the personality—or let’s say that that was one of the feelings I had. [...]

[...] The so-called Sinful Self is actually giving him a more or less handy list of stubborn older beliefs that clash with his new ones—beliefs that often go underground —and the “Sinful Self” is giving the rationale behind such beliefs. [...]

So the belief in man’s sinful nature persisted in my mind, a constant reminder of man’s ignorance of his own nature. How could I be sure that our sight wasn’t also distorted; that our “sin” was in not accepting sin as a value? Perhaps sin itself contained some value that escaped beyond our calculations, still undiscovered.

After the session I began to wonder what Jane’s “sinful self” would have to say now, in comparison to the material she’d received from it in June 1981. During that fervent bout of activity her sinful self had explained and defended its actions most eloquently throughout some 36 closely handwritten pages. [...] I’d also been reminded of material Seth himself had given a few weeks earlier, in a very important private session on April 16: “Many of Ruburt’s beliefs have changed, but the core belief in the sinful self has been very stubborn. [...]

It could hardly have been accidental, then, that beginning on June 17, 1981, our deep need led to Jane’s spontaneous production of her own sinful-self material. The way had been illuminated by Seth himself in his private sessions, with his discussions of her sinful self and related challenges: Those sessions, the publication of the two books, Jane’s personal sinful-self material and her worsening physical situation, all combined to serve as a complex trigger. [...]

(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. [...]

(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). [...]

[...] 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. [...]

[...] The Sinful Self, however, no longer identifies with the Roman Catholic Church, as once it did, and in years past it also became dissatisfied with that framework. [...] In that regard the Sinful Self, then, is not pleased with its situation. [...]

The Sinful Self wants to be sure it is not lying, because it feels that according to its definitions it is naturally given to such behavior—being bad, sinful, et cetera. [...]

[...] I took this to mean that communication continued between her Sinful Self and other levels of her personality. [...]

(Long pause at 9:02.) The Sinful Self shows itself in a period of transition from its religious to scientific format in science fiction or fantasy in particular, where you can almost trace the translation of religion’s self, tainted by original sin, to the Darwinian and Freudian concepts of the flawed self, bound to destruction one way or another, propelled by the unbridled unconscious or evolutionary defect. [...]

(The whole experience was obviously very therapeutic, and to me it seemed like an excellent sign of encountering beliefs that had helped create her Sinful Self. [...]

[...] It was also a reminder of how far she had carried her resistance to change and confrontation with the Sinful Self—and often without my really understanding just how badly off she is. [...]

(I did dwell upon the fact that Seth—and Jane—have yet to go into the main question I’ve asked several times since she came home from the hospital: the current attitude and role of her sinful self. To me, I said, the sinful self is more active and domineering than ever before, and after all we thought we’d learned over the years. [...]

[...] I said I thought both she and Seth had avoided my questions about the sinful self, which I saw as part of the sinful self’s power to cover up issues it didn’t want to face, or considered threatening. [...]

[...] That is, the expression of love automatically reassures the sinful self that it is indeed not sinful (a statement that at once I found hard to believe, considering its past and recent actions). [...]

(Pause.) In that regard, the questions of Ruburt’s “Sinful Self” must indeed seem to it most alarming, for it possesses no frame of reference in which its own questions can be answered. These very passages are meant to help open the door of understanding, so that the Sinful Self itself can understand why it feels as it does, so that it can also realize that there are other systems in which its questions can at least be considered. [...]

(Long pause.) Its fears of such feelings, rather than the feelings themselves, cause difficulties, for the repression keeps the Sinful Self forever locked in the past, uneducated, panicky. The release of such feelings allows the Sinful Self some expression, and gives it a sense of communication so that it can indeed be reached by the understanding gained by other portions of the self—a highly important point. [...]

The idea of the Sinful Self came into play here, for if the material was not true, then in that framework it must necessarily be false—or at the least very misleading. [...]

By now it must be plain to the reader that Seth’s material on the sinful self—any sinful self, or all of them—could very well be considered the other side of his information on the magical approach to reality. [...] Indeed, how irritating it was, I thought, that for Jane and me at least the magical self seemed to be so far removed from daily reality, while the sinful self was so close! Reaching out to the magical self could be thought of as some theoretically attainable goal—but the sinful self was right there, functioning within the most intimate areas of personal life. [...]

[...] In that session Seth used her nightmare as the basis for a discussion of her life as a nun, mentioned her grandfather, and began the “sinful-self” material I referred to at the beginning of the notes for this 931st session. His information on the sinful self opened up a very important development in Jane’s [and my own] search for an understanding of her symptoms, and I’m presenting excerpts from that session in Note 9. [Before long, I realized that I could use notes to carry portions of several more sessions on the sinful self.]

Through April and into May, I had problems controlling my own anger and hurt feelings toward Jane’s sinful self as I came to better understand its mechanisms of operation. [...] of course, my feelings reflected upon the workings of my sinful self, or upon some similar psychological quality—for how could I be so involved with my wife’s challenges, for almost 26 years, without complementing them within deep portions of my own personality? [...] “The idea is in no way to accuse the sinful self,” Seth said on April 28. [...]

Ruburt is still dealing with spin-off material following or resulting from his Sinful-Self data, and this material generally follows the lines of development that are fairly obvious in the poems and notes that have followed since that time. [...]

[...] The entire Sinful Self material should be reviewed. [...]

[...] That is, he should type up the small bit of material, and read over the Sinful Self’s document. [...]

Religious laws deal with sin, whether or not a crime is committed (pause), and religious concepts usually take it for granted that the individual is guilty until proven innocent. And if you have not committed a crime in fact, then you have at least sinned in your heart — for which, of course, you must be punished. A sin can be anything from playing cards to having a sexual fantasy. You are sinful creatures. [...]

In the world of religion, however, you are already tainted by original sin: “The mark of Cain” is symbolically upon your foreheads. You come from a species that sinned against God. [...]

Everything I have said about the Sinful Self applies. The Sinful Self is not the “villain”. [...]

[...] During one of our discussions yesterday, also, I mentioned to Jane some of my own ideas about the power of the Sinful Self, according to Seth’s material. [...]

[...] Ruburt had strong elements of personality still caught up in the beliefs of what I have called the Sinful Self. [...]

(Then, not long before the session this evening, I mentioned to Jane my question about the Sinful Self’s reaction to our latest efforts. We haven’t seen the kind of physical response we want yet, and I wanted to know if our efforts were prompting the Sinful Self to step up its own protective behavior to keep Jane “under control.” I explained to Jane that my own idea of why Seth’s statements over the years, that she was on the way to recovery, were always negated was that these very statements alerted the Sinful Self to redouble its efforts to prevent Jane’s recovery because of its own fears. I added that when I used the term Sinful Self, I only meant certain blocks of ideas that we’ve personified for convenience’s sake.

Your earlier comments about Jane’s Sinful Self is pertinent. (Long pause.) Remember, again, that the Sinful-Self designation is a method of identifying certain attitudes. [...]

[...] I’m still shocked to realize that while I was laboring over Mass Events, and Jane was doing God of Jane, that those two books had stirred up even more resistance on the part of that personified Sinful Self, and that when they were finished we were then confronted with a new barrage of symptoms that ended up restricting [and protecting?] Jane’s physical manipulability even more. [...]

Now, in politics and religion, (Prime Minister) Begin believes it much more practical to deal with the Sinful Self and its “evil prerogatives” than he does with the better self that may indeed represent “the Son of God in man.” [...] The Sinful Self is convinced of its own evil, and the evil intent of others, and so it is driven to protect itself ahead of time. [...]

This does indeed mean change at other levels of activity, the Sinful Self not only loosening its hold, but relinquishing some of the energy that it had withheld and repressed, so that the energy becomes available practically speaking for the body’s use once again. [...]

(One-minute pause at 8:52.) I did want to make some comments about the Sinful Self in general, and how it is perceived and assimilated in say, Castaneda’s work and in the belief structure of Kubler-Ross. [...]

[...] Those habits were there, again, before the sessions began, and they have their basis in the church’s concepts of the sinful nature of the basic self. [...]

Again, that belief in the need for control is rooted in the earlier concepts of the Sinful Self (long pause)—concepts that have come to the fore in current contemporary world events with the new attention being given to religious cults and religions. [...]

(10:22.) It was in Mass Events and God of Jane that the usual concept of the Sinful Self was most directly and vigorously addressed, and in which the value of individual impulses was stressed with consistent vigor. [...]