“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(The first session in the Preface for Volume 1 of Dreams is a private one that Jane delivered on September 13, 1979. In the Preliminary Notes for the session I wrote that Seth had finished dictating Mass Events a month ago [in the 873rd session for August 15, to be exact], and that a week later I began finishing my own notes for the book. I completed those notes yesterday afternoon—and on that score suddenly found myself free after nine months of concentrated labor. [And wouldn’t you know it, I told Jane: My last paragraph for Mass Events is about the biannual migratory flights of the geese.]

Last night, as I began typing Monday’s 915th session, I asked Jane why Seth hadn’t just called his “invisible particles” CU’s, or units of consciousness, as he’d done earlier in Dreams,² and as he’d always done in his other books. The question upset her, especially when I added that I was afraid Seth was repeating old material under a new term. In order to help Jane feel better, I speculated that he must have had his reasons for doing this, and that of course a certain amount of repetition is necessary in each book in a series: The restatements not only furnish a foundation for new material, but enable each book to be complete in itself. After all, I said, I try to achieve those same goals with the notes.³

In spite of those thoughts, Jane was still rather upset and out of sorts a day later as session time approached. Even with her unease, however, she wanted to begin the session early, as she’s been doing lately. She also thought of giving me the night off, by way of celebrating a bit because I’ve finished the notes for Mass Events, but I told her I’d rather keep the sessions going as long as both of us feel like it. This afternoon I’d started my first tentative typing for Mass Events, and felt good about that.

Then, as we waited for a delayed session, Jane received material from Seth in which he very nicely explained his use of “invisible particles” on Monday evening—and since tonight he goes into his reasons for doing so, there’s no need to give them here. Of course we were both relieved. And of course, Seth hadn’t been concerned at all.)

10:01 P.M. Near the close of Monday evening’s session, Seth had given us an insight into the nature of his own reality. I told Jane now that he’d offered us another hint tonight. His statement is particularly intriguing because Seth indicated that in his nonphysical reality, “wherever that is,” he’s still developing, just as we are “here on earth.” I added that I’d certainly like him to comment sometime on those “new concepts” he’s about to explore.)

1. I also kept track of Jane’s progress as she wrote the Introduction for Mass Events. She finished that excellent piece of work seven months ago—a few days before she delivered the first formal session for the Preface to Dreams, the 881st, on September 25, 1979. See the opening notes for that session, in Volume 1.

3. In a note like this I can only touch upon the theme of repetition. All of Jane’s books, as well as my own notes for her Seth books, obviously contain repetitious material, and/or material based upon variations of certain basic concepts. It’s inevitable and necessary that they do. Individually and en masse, and to the extent that our human systems of perception make it possible, our species has created a world and universe built upon a very limited, repetitious creation and interpretation of internal and external data. We could hardly survive without our particular communicative repetition, nor could any other species without its own.

I’ve often thought that the repetition in the Seth books, say, is nothing compared to the repeated barrages of suggestion—much of it negative—that our species has chosen to subject itself to daily. I constantly search for balances between the positive and the negative. Indeed, however, Jane and I think that in ordinary terms, and for many reasons, our species long ago began creating a great deal of negative thinking and action—so much so that those qualities came to range throughout all facets of our world culture. As far as I know, we humans are the only ones to indulge in such behavior. I can’t imagine animals doing so, for instance—they have no need to!

I’m sure that in much larger terms even negativity is creative, and often in ways we cannot comprehend in our temporal reality, but I do believe that Jane’s work offers more penetrating and redeeming insights into many of those challenges we create. Once again, then, on world scales ranging from the very small to the very large—and with all of them seamlessly “interlocked”—consciousness seeks to both know and surprise itself.