“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

I never want any of my remarks to be construed in such a fashion that it seems I am in any way negating the fullness, validity, and magnificence of physical existence. I do want to point out, however, that a state you usually call dreaming is but a dim indication of an inner reality of events (intently), an inner order of events from which the physical world emerges. I hope to show how the nature of dreams has helped shape man’s consciousness. I hope to show that consciousness forms the environment, and not the other way around (with many gestures).

(A one-minute pause at 9:40.) Give us a moment…. Generally speaking, the states of waking and sleeping are the only levels of consciousness with which you have been primarily concerned. It seems to you that this is the result of your evolutionary progress—but there have been civilizations upon the earth that specialized in the use of many focuses of consciousness, as for example you are focused upon the use of tools.

(9:56 P.M. “I could feel him around when I was doing the supper dishes,” Jane said as soon as she was out of trance. “And I could feel him around more and more after that, but I still get cold feet when I know he’s going to start a new book…. Was it good?”

It’s impossible, of course, for us not to have a sense of responsibility about the sessions. I’m sure Seth knows this, but it’s obvious that he wants us to maintain a light rather than a heavy psychological touch. Sometimes that’s rather difficult to achieve, though. Recently we received an excellent, rather lengthy paper about our work in which the writer, a psychologist, discussed among other things the import of Seth’s material, as well as various explanations of his origin. We think about those subjects too, but in order to have the sessions on a week-to-week basis we concentrate upon the simple creative achievement embodied in each session itself, and let go of the larger implications. Those implications are usually in the background of our joint awareness, however.)

1. Recently, I bought two books written by “scientific creationists.” The authors strongly disagree with ideas of evolution. I’ve read halfway through one of the books, and have discussed it with Jane to some extent. After the session I suggested that she start reading it also, in order to acquaint herself with theories radically different from the “ordinary” scientific ones espoused by evolutionists. Very briefly: The creationists believe that God created the universe (including the earth, obviously) around 10,000 years ago. They maintain that all of the earth’s living forms have remained essentially unchanged since that prime creative event; they can account for the disappearance of the dinosaurs, for example, and the vast number of other life forms we no longer see around us. On the other hand, evolutionary science believes that the universe came into being between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago; that the earth itself is about 4.6 billion years old, and that according to the fossil record and other evidence, its living organisms first arose and began evolving at least 3.5 billion years ago. Science also believes, however, that the study of a “first cause” involves not scientific but philosophical and theological questions. For instance, why did the universe we think we know so well come into existence at all, and what was the cause of that beginning?

I know that Jane is interested in the book in question, but also a bit afraid of it: “I don’t want to be so influenced by it—or by any other book—that it starts coming out in the material,” she’s said more than once recently. I agree, since I think that in their own ways the views expressed by the scientific creationists are just as limited as those held by the conventional scientific establishment. But Jane has an excellent critical mind. I’m not concerned that anything she reads will unduly influence her—or Seth.

“Today, Ruburt’s body wanted to relax. He has been doing very well, and he tried to approve, but since he lost work time yesterday, his approval barely went skin deep (louder).

“When you mentioned his ink sketches he instantly wanted to play at painting again, but felt, guiltily, that he should not. He forgot, once again, that the creative self is aware of his entire life, and that his impulses have a creative purpose.

“These sessions themselves involve the highest levels of creative productivity, at many levels, so he should refresh himself painting or doing whatever he likes, for that refreshment adds to his creativity, of course. He will finish his book (God of Jane), and do beautifully with it. He should follow the rhythms of his own creativity without being overly concerned with the time. For a while, again, have him write three hours of free writing, and paint or whatever. His book will be provided for. You can see how your own creativity is emerging in the notes for Mass Events. Granted, you need time to write physically, but the basic creativity has its own ‘time.’