“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Now. (Smile. Then elaborately:) Let us return to our tale of origins.

For the purposes of our discussion, I must necessarily couch this book to some degree in the framework of time. I must honor your specifics. Otherwise you would not understand what I am trying to say.

(Pause.) We will nevertheless call our next chapter “In the Beginning,” laying certain events out for you in serial form. I hope that in other portions of this book certain mental exercises will allow you to leap over the tradition of time’s framework and sense with the united intellect and intuitions your own individual part in a spacious present that is large enough to contain all of time’s segments.

(10:19.) Give us a moment…. Remind me, for our next session, to wind in a discussion of those subjective entities as they learned how to translate themselves into physical individuals.

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.

In its way the meson may have all of the “time” it needs, or wants. It may look upon our world as one frozen or motionless, upon other subatomic particles as very slow-moving indeed, or even faster than it is. (As far as “time” goes, some particles live for far less than a trillionth of a second.) I’m quite sure, however, that the meson, or any short-lived particle, searches out its own kind of value fulfillment while here with us. Probable realities, which I haven’t even mentioned, must be deeply involved also.

And of course there are all sorts of motion, some of them very stable, if still incomprehensible to us. But whereas the meson vanishes from our view after its exceedingly brief existence, the electron has an “infinite” life-span. Think of the unending varieties of value fulfillment it explores in just our world alone! Talk about motion: The average electron orbits its atomic nucleus about a million times each billionth of a second (or nanosecond)!

She began to refer to the eccentricities of consciousness in October 1974, following her first conscious experience with her “psychic library,” and a subsequent transcendental experience in which she suddenly began to see, with an astonishing clear vision, the great “model” of each portion of the world about her—each person, each building, each blade of grass, each bird, for example; our ordinary world suddenly appeared quite shabby by contrast. Jane wrote that “everyone was a classic model, yet each was also a fantastic eccentric…. I saw that each of us is a beloved eccentric not only because we have inner models of the self, but also the freedom to deviate from them, all of which makes the model living and creative in our time.” In Psychic Politics, see chapters 2 and 3.

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.)