“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Now if you will allow me, creativity is born from desire. To deny creativity is to deny All That Is, is to deny the vitality that was born itself out of its own desire. To deny individuality or to speak in terms of nirvana is to deny the vitality from which all originally came, in your terms.

(To everyone.) Now in one way you are all playing childhood games with yourselves, and if you will forgive me, I will use an analogy and remember it is an analogy. And an analogy is a fable, a tale, a story, or a parable that is innately true while it may not physically appear to be so. You are all children in one way playing beneath the maple trees, dreaming in the long twilights of your adult state even as your adult selves now seemingly so independent would not know what to say to your childhood selves if you met them; but within you the childhood self must also grow, and allow it its growth. In the reality that you know there are many boxes. You can travel from one box to another. The boxes are not prisons anymore than the cousin of Richelieu is hidden to the housewife who is now so proudly the housewife and so contemptuous, for Richelieu’s cousin who was also contemptuous particularly of housewives.

I was referring to several of you. You are one of them. I will not mention the others to whom I was referring since they already know, and I know that they know. You read that very well. You have traveled through the centuries. The particular relationships in the context do not matter for there are those who have had none in that particular respect. The main answer is that you were one of the ones to whom I was speaking.

([Ron:] “I was wondering if you weren’t speaking of yourself also?”)

I was not particularly speaking of myself. I have always, for example, honored both the evening and the dawn in my earthly reincarnations. I have always glorified in that which was directly before me and have had close relationships with those who came within my sphere. Listen to what I say in the context of the passage in that session.

(After break, to Bette.) Marseilles ...Marseilles, which was a small town in which the early life was spent. Later some activity in Paris. Responsible—give us time here—for the severing of a leg of a manservant. Involved in the treasury and in ritualistic activities having to do with the church. A member of a brotherhood of St. John’s, which was largely a social organization with religious connections. You wore scapulars up to your ears and you were a fine dandy.

([Mark:] “Was that a male or a female?”)

It was a male. A dandy was always a male.

([Bette:] “Seth, what was a dandy?”)

A dandy was a gentleman with high and fine and fancy white fluffed collars in the latest fashion, who wore girdles and bound in his waist, who was flirtatious and usually quite artificial in behavior, who dealt above all things in ritualized verbal activities, who got where he could get anyway he could.

Because you were looking for it, and it is a life you needed to know about. Now. There were other, gentler ones. But here you were denying your intellectual abilities and projecting outward upon others, a dislike that was of your own making. You were a fine dancer, and you were very good with the ladies, and within the framework of existence in which you dwelt, you had a good heart. Now that should make you feel better.

(Bette asked Jane during break what Jane thought a fine dandy was.)

It was a gay blade! In later vocabulary—that is later vocabulary. It means what you were.

([Gert:] “Was that French business to get me asking questions?”)

It was, indeed.

([Gert:] “And that was it...”)

It was.

([Gert:] “Was I a priest?”)

That is your difficulty. Do not overplay your hand. The dream experience that our friend (Sue) had was legitimate, and you were involved in it though you do not remember. Now apply it specifically to a daily life situation. Do not overplay your hand. Do not cry wolf, wolf, unless you mean it. If you mean it, you do not need to yell wolf.

I would like to give you, for now, the same answer that I gave you before. Yes. And that was as far as I was willing to go at that time. And it is as far as both of us are willing to go at this time. And that tells you more than you knew before you asked the question.

Because you projected this upon her, and at one time it was a very safe place to project such feelings. There was a relationship in the past but not a deep one. You were simply afraid of expressing the feelings in any capacity, and projected them, therefore, upon a person who subconsciously you felt would not be able to reciprocate. You very nicely projected them upon a person who was bonded as you were by all kinds of taboos, specifically against any such behavior, where they would be least reciprocated in physical terms, when any such action would automatically involve all kinds of guilt and retaliation, the most difficult position of which you could conceive. You would have projected them upon a priest, but this frightened you even more because the male relationship held for you a feeling of terror. You did not, you see, project them upon a person who could immediately answer them in kind, with no strings attached; but a relationship could be easy, open, and immediate.

The affair in the overall will work out well for you  the situation as it now exists. It will work out in the framework that you now have. Do you follow me? The one detriment is an explosive nature on the part of the male involved under certain circumstances and certain conditions. A certain attitude on his part. This can be compensated for by an evenness of disposition on your part ...(tape was changed here, words missing) ...you need not manufacture such an attitude... work out should help give it to you. A feeling of inner confidence that he will sense.

What do you think you would feel if you were convinced that what I told you about your lives tomorrow and for the next year was true, and then I told you. What would you think if I gave you a legitimate statement about the activities of your lives until your deaths, in your terms. Would you thank me, or would you instead hate me for taking from you the glorious unpredictability of the life that you know?