“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Yesterday Jane finished typing Chapter 15 of God of Jane. The chapter actually consists of her long poem, “A Psychic Manifesto,” which she wrote in July 1979. I’m quoting the first verse of the poem in the front matter for Mass Events. “Among other things,” I note there, “the poem is a passionate declaration of psychic independence, written in response to Seth’s ideas in this book.” Jane also described events relative to her creation of “A Psychic Manifesto” in Chapter 14 of God of Jane [I expect to finish the notes for Mass Events within a couple of weeks.]

(“Good evening, Seth.”)

(With emphasis, while Billy slept curled up against my left elbow as I sat on the couch writing down Seth’s material:) Animals know that their own lives spell out life’s meaning. They feel their relationship with all other forms of life. They know that their existences are vitally important in the framework of planetary existence. Beyond that, they identify themselves with the spirit of life within them so fully and so completely that to question its meaning would be inconceivable. Not inconceivable because such creatures cannot think, but because life’s meaning is so self-evident to them.

(10:09. I did have a question for Seth now—one made up of a number of questions, actually, and another one of my favorites. It’s easily the longest I’ve asked in a session. It grows out of Seth’s philosophy, obviously, yet it also reflects my own, and concerns man’s attempts to both fight and grasp his heritage. Here’s a condensation of what I said:

Seth had listened politely while I expressed myself.)

(“Thank you, Seth.”)

1. There isn’t any such word as incalculatable, of course, but that’s what Jane came through with as she spoke for Seth. She obviously meant to say “incalculable.” Seldom indeed does she make such slips while delivering the Seth material—much less often than any of us may do in daily life.

2. Seth referred to a question I periodically ask Jane, but seldom discuss with others simply because they don’t seem to be interested: What’s happened to all of the Rembrandts? Why isn’t there at least one artist in all of the world painting today whose ability equals Rembrandt’s, and who uses that great gift to evoke the depths of compassion for the human condition as Rembrandt did? For in my opinion there isn’t such a one around. By extension, why isn’t there a Rubens or a Velázquez or a Vermeer operating now? My choices are personally arbitrary, of course—yet why don’t we have a Rembrandt contributing to our current reality? Just those four artists, whose lives spanned a period of only 98 years (from 1577 to 1675), explored human insight in powerful ways. To link the “great masters” with our species’ reincarnational intents and drives, as Seth mentions in this session, opens up a new field for understanding my question, and a very large and intriguing one indeed.