“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Remember, again, the manifest [universe] emerges from a subjective reality, one that is implied in the very nature of your world itself. I would like you, then, to think of those units of consciousness from an entirely different scale of events.

(9:32. With many pauses:) All That Is, as the source of all realities and experience, is so psychologically complex, so multidimensionally creative, that it constantly surprises itself. It is, itself, the invisible universe that is everywhere implied within your world, but that becomes manifest to your perception only through historic time. All That Is disperses itself, therefore, so that it is on the one hand “a massive” subjective entity, a psychological structure—and on the other hand, it also disperses itself into the phenomenal world. It is, in all meanings of the word, divine, yet it disperses even that divinity so that in your terms (long pause), each unit of consciousness contains within itself those properties of divinity. All That Is has no one image, but is within all images—and in parentheses: (whether or not they are manifest). Your thoughts are the invisible partners of your words, and the vast unstated subjectivity of All That Is is in the same way behind all stated or manifest phenomena.

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.