“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

I finished typing last Monday night’s session a few minutes before we sat for this one, and Jane just had time to read it before she felt Seth around: “Okay, I’m ready….”)

(“Thank you, Seth. Good night.”)

I laughed. It was easy to tell that Jane was happy working on Seth’s latest. I gladly told her the session was just as good, just as inspiring, as her last one—the 883rd: Once again her delivery had been intent, often impassioned, given with many gestures. She’s been picking up from Seth on Dreams quite often. Sometimes she tells me as soon as she’s done this. At other times she may forget to mention it for a while, or the session material itself may remind her that she already knew what Seth was going to talk about.)

Through their work with particle accelerators, or “atom smashers,” physicists have discovered that protons and neutrons themselves are composed of forces and particles that in turn are almost certainly composed of forces and particles, and so on, in an ever-descending scale of smaller and smaller entities and concepts. Over 100 subatomic particles have been identified so far, and no one doubts now that many more will be found. The existence of a number of still-undiscovered specific particles has been predicted. All of which reminds me that almost 16 years ago, in only the 19th session he’d given us (on January 27, 1964), Seth remarked:

Some of the “particles” the theoretical physicists have discovered—and/or created—in their gigantic particle accelerators have unbelievably short life-spans in our terms, vanishing, it seems, almost before they’re born. I like to think of such research from the particle’s point of view, though, a consideration I haven’t seen mentioned in the few scientific journals I read. Keep in mind that according to the Seth material the merest particle is basically conscious in its own way. Mesons are classes of particles produced from the collisions of protons. Did a meson, for example, choose to participate in an atom-smashing experiment in order to merely peek in on our gross physical reality for much less than the billionth of a second it exists with that identity, before it decays into electrons and photons? From its viewpoint, our reality might be as incomprehensible to it as its reality is to us—yet the two inevitably go together.

At this point in my speculations I’m usually led back to Seth’s EE (or electromagnetic energy) units, and his CU’s (or units of consciousness). These nonphysical entities—and many others of a like nature—are emanations of consciousness, or All That Is, and in “size” rank far below the tiniest particles ever observed in an atom smasher. According to Seth, each unit of consciousness “contains within itself innately infinite properties of expansion, development and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality…. It is aware energy … not ‘personified’ but awareized.” See Session 682 for Volume 1 of “Unknown” Reality.

Seth came through with that session on February 13, 1974. Now let me close this note with an excerpt from a private session he gave on July 3, 1978:

3. Now what, I wondered, as I typed this session from my notes, does Seth mean here, and in the paragraph above? Sometimes it’s difficult to pinpoint just what he’s saying. His material usually generates more questions than answers, but this time he’d outdone himself. I try to avoid reading too much into such brief passages, but I felt that if Seth answered all of the questions I could ask based upon this session, a book would result. Was he referring to another big-bang type of “momentous explosion”? I doubted it. Without going into a lot of speculative detail, such an event would imply the obliteration of our probable physical universe as we know it. Instead, I thought, by “another form” he may mean an explosion of ideas or knowledge in our reality, with the tremendous objective results that would follow. Such results would stem even from “just” a spiritual explosion. (I could also see correlations here between Seth’s ideas about the primary nature of All That Is and the inflationary model of the universe. See Note 2 for Session 883.)

Since it’s sometimes difficult to be sure of just what Seth is saying, in retrospect I wished that either he’d volunteered more information about his explosion-expansion, or that I’d been quick enough to ask him to do so. But if words are often necessarily limited and stereotyped, they can also be quite elusive—and this is an excellent thing, for it shows they’re still alive, charged with meanings that change. Basically, those meanings can never really be “put into words.”