“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] That kind of behavior will not give you therapeutic results. [...]

[...] It can be seen in other forms (pause)—in your interest for example years ago in situations like survival, using the land’s resources; in your imagined dealings with a possible nuclear war in the past, when you saw yourselves relying upon yourselves; in your behavior during the flood; in your determination to seek yourselves for the meaning of life rather than look to the authorities—and indeed in your own dealings with your own health when such issues arise. [...]

[...] They are highly pertinent, and they are more realistically a part of your biological behavior than your patterns of pessimism are. [...]

[...] Seth had discussed her father’s laxness, and her mother’s drive toward purpose, power, and control, and how Jane had felt that she must make a choice between the two modes of behavior. [...]

[...] In its own fashion such acts of love are beneficially related with the spontaneous behavior of animals. [...]

[...] As I have said often, evidence of clairvoyance, telepathy, or whatever, are not eccentric, isolated instances occurring in man’s experience, but are representative of natural patterns of everyday behavior that become invisible in your world because of the official picture of behavior and reality.

[...] And your beliefs to the contrary, you have closed your minds to man’s own cooperative nature, to his innate desire for fellowship, his natural bent for taking care of others, and (with elaborate, if gentle emphasis) for altruistic behavior. [...]

[...] The give-and-take of weather conditions and animal behavior is little understood. [...]

[...] Rather, my emotional behavior does not follow your patterns—that is closer to “the truth.”

I have long delegated your kind of emotional activity to unconscious behavior, in your terms. [...]

(2. I found myself wondering if my own attitudes might have strongly influenced Jane’s early psychic behavior in ways neither of us suspected—that she may have inhibited certain elements of her abilities because she feared my own ideas about distractions, time, failure, etc. [...]

[...] The creative person often is not wanted at a job, because their creativity by contrast with others’ behavior shows the vast difference between what I will now call joyful work and the usual variety.

[...] The cats did not represent your physical cats (Mitzi and Billy Two), but old comfortable beliefs about the nature of the spontaneous self connected with ideas he picked up from his mother, in which cats represented the worst aspects of human behavior and impulses: they fawned upon you, yet were evil, and could turn against you in a moment.

I remind you often of the behavior of muscles, and so forth, so that you will not be suddenly upset when Ruburt has bad days, or discomfort, because I realize that that has been largely your framework of reference, and it is of no benefit for me to ignore your beliefs in that matter—and what I have said applies. [...]

[...] They have to do with the way Jane reacts to the world through her mystical nature —something we seldom consider, if ever; and any possible inhibiting factors in her behavior that might have been set up after the psychic business started. [...]

[...] They possess the capacity to enjoy esthetic behavior. [...]

[...] This is not “blind instinctive behavior” at all, but the result of well-ordered spontaneous artistry. [...]

Now Ruburt is doing the same thing, of course, and it is often easier for one of you to see when the other is involved in such behavior, than to see when you are yourself. [...]

[...] Marie was a brilliant, angry woman who lived in near-constant pain, and who regularly abused her daughter through behavior that, if not psychotic, was certainly close to it. [...]

[...] Out of many possibilities, the daughter’s conditioning was psychically chosen and accepted, and through that focus she meant to interact with the mother’s behavior. [...]

To return to just Jane and Marie, then, I think that their long-range cyclical behavior and interaction, no matter how painful it may seem on the surface, represented deep challenges set up by mother and daughter for certain overall purposes that they wanted to experience, separately and jointly. [...]

[...] Particularly when I consider the “news” on the typical front page of the typical daily newspaper: All too accurately the “stories” of war, pollution, corruption, and poverty and crime show just how little we human beings know or understand ourselves at this time—and how far we have to go, individually and en masse. As the years have passed, I’ve come to trust more and more my own insights into our behavior as a species within the framework of a nature that I believe our kind has co-created with every other species on the planet (to confine my theme to just our immediate environment for the moment). [...]

[...] At certain times some behavior has been primarily expressed in the waking state, and sometimes in the dream state. The emphasis is never static, but ever-changing In some periods, then, the normal behavior was “more dreamlike,” while more specific developments occurred in the dream state, which was then the more clear or specified of the two. [...]

Some people may seem completely normal in behavior unless certain subjects are brought up in the course of a conversation, or unless some stimulus in the environment arouses them.

In this chapter we will deal with some current beliefs involving your most intimate behavior and social connotations.

[...] In a male crying is considered the worst kind of behavior. [...]

[...] Now there is a difference between freely experimenting with and enjoying various styles of dress, attitudes and behavior — and finding yourself “lost” in a compulsion to change your appearance, attitude and behavior. [...]

[...] The invisible belief, however, affected her behavior and experience. [...]

[...] Many other characteristics that might mitigate such behavior are minimized, and can be seen as dangerous by them. [...]

Now: this will undoubtedly be a brief-enough session—but I wanted you to know that some important organizations of behavior that have bothered you both—particularly Ruburt—have lost their power. [...]

(As I told Jane today, a study of the affair would be fascinating in many ways, particularly as it would have to involve Fred’s behavior and beliefs as associated with the Seth material. [...]

[...] Michaellen and I embraced and kissed as she said goodbye, and I wondered what her companions thought of such behavior between strangers, right out there under the light.

[...] The relationships between nature’s natural conservative behavior and nature’s need for innovation are stretched. More and more remarkable events begin to occur, both in private and mass experience, in physical and mental behavior, in the events, say, of both stars and man.

[...] Predictable behavior, even of the natural elements, is harder to take for granted. Man begins to sense more and more at such times the vaster dimensions of behavior upon which that appearance of conservation resides.

[...] In this fashion they also mirror your more exterior behavior, conserving what you know already, and yet introducing new patterns, new spontaneous orders that would sometimes seem to run against conservative issues. [...]

(9:01.) In private living and in so-called evolutionary terms, however, life necessitates the intrusion of surprising events, unforeseen actions, leaps of insight or behavior that could not come alone from any accumulation of knowledge or simple conservation of energy, but seem to suggest entirely different new developments.

[...] I wish I could put this into words; but you’ve got to realize that events outside the body are the same events as those inside the body — the behavior of its neurons and all of its chemical activities … and because inside and outside are so beautifully synchronized, everything will always agree.

[...] The growing consciousness had to make such distinctions for practical behavior. [...]

[...] Many people have at one time or another changed their present behavior in response to the advice of a “future” probable self, without ever knowing they have done so.