“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Jane was very relaxed after supper. When I got out to the living room to wait for the session, I found her watching one of those fascinating, multiple-subject science programs on the educational channel: Various experts were discussing topics like childbirth and sound, Kirlian photography, astronomy, particle physics, and so forth. After the program ended at 9:00 I explained to Jane out of my own limited knowledge how particle accelerators—“atom smashers”—work. She partially grasped what I told her. I suggested quickly showing her an article I’d recently filed on the subject, but she didn’t want to see it.

“No, it’s just that before that program I felt he had a lot of complicated material to give, and I couldn’t get it afterward,” Jane replied. We continued to wait. At 9:23: “Now I can tell he’s got a new chapter heading…. I hope he comes through with something. I feel awfully funny. Actually, I feel like I’m in a trance,” Jane said with unwitting humor, “but not the right one….” And it developed that she never had had a session quite like this one.)

(9:42 P.M. Seth’s references to my facial changes while sleeping touched upon a subject Jane and I had meant to ask him about several times; she’d referred to it again today. My eye improvements had been “officially” verified by our optometrist, John Smith, on February 18. [See Note 1 for Session 901.] A few nights before that, Jane had awakened and turned on her table light, sitting up in bed to have a cigarette as she sometimes does. She’d noticed my expression as I lay sleeping on my back: “One of bliss, almost, though I don’t like the word, and it’s not the right one anyhow,” she told me the next morning. “But I’ve seen you sleeping before, and I knew the difference.

I could only reply this evening—as I had at the time—that I was glad she’d had her perception, but that consciously I hadn’t been aware of any bodily changes. Neither of us had connected my subsequent eye improvements with her insight, although perhaps we should have. But such associations aren’t nearly as easy to foresee as they are to understand in retrospect.