“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

In many situations, the main personifications are instead of a ritual nature, taking advantage of psychological patterns already present in the culture’s art or religion or science. You end up with Christs, spacemen, various saints or spirits, or other personality fabrications whose characteristics and abilities are already known.

It was understood that all of these “forces” had their parts to play in human events. Some stood for forces of nature that could very well be at times advantageous, and at times disadvantageous—as, for example, the god of storms might be very welcome at one time, in periods of drought, while his powers might be quite dreaded if he overly satisfied his people. There was no chasm of polarity between the “good gods and the bad ones.”

(10:14.) These include man’s ability to identify with the forces of nature, to project portions of his own psychological reality outward from himself, and then to perceive those portions in a revitalized transformation—a transformation that then indeed can alter physical reality.

The next natural step would be to reassimilate those portions of the self, to acknowledge their ancient origins and abilities, to return them so that they form a new coating, as it were, or a new version of selfhood. It is as if (pause) man could not understand his own potentials unless he projected them outward into a godhead, where he could see them in a kind of isolated pure form, recognize them for what they are, and then accept them—the potentials—as a part of his own psychological reality (all very intently). As a species, however, you have not taken the last step. Your idea of the devil represents the same kind of process, except that it stands for your idea of evil or darkness, or abilities that you are afraid of. They also stand for elements of your own potential. I am not speaking of evil possibilities, but that man must realize that he is responsible for his acts, whether they are called good or evil.