“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(To Sue and Ned:) I do have one point to make. The child (Sean) was a girl—1432—France—and at one time your sister—strong literary abilities—some interest in music—should not be pampered for the personality is already given to indulgence. There may be an allergy to wheat—early in life—was also known to this one here in Spain—the country now called Spain—in 801 as an uncle—then a warrior-type personality—but again given to indulgence.

An entity on a par with the parents. A mole or mark on one of the feet—a possible weak point in the right elbow—given to high exuberance, quick moods—but not forgiving. The personality should not be indulged, but it should not be shown dissonance—and discipline should be fair, for it will hold grudges otherwise.

Now, you see what you are willing to see, and it is stupidity to consider suggestion as the result or the cause of what you see. It is stupidity in class to worry that suggestion would cause a given result—for suggestion causes whatever you see. You form your physical reality through suggestion and expectation. You experience what you expect to experience at a subconscious and a conscious level. And therefore, as Ruburt is very careful that suggestion is not involved, so he has also had you be overly cautious, and there have been many opportunities in class that you have missed for this reason—and these are the bets that I have spoken about earlier this evening. You have the ability to see more than you saw and you have the ability. You enjoyed your passivity (to Ned) to the point of an enjoyous giving-up; and instead, you see, there is a point within passivity where you are passively alert. And you went beyond the point and lost what you might have seen. As our friend here went beyond the point (referring to Theodore), looked at the portraits and consciously—for you did not make an original, intuitive, judgment—but consciously looked at these portraits in terms of nationality, age and all the requirements that you thought of.

I said: “In your terms, I was dead;” in my terms, I am forever lively. (This to clarify a point being discussed by the class.