“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Rob and I don’t refer to Seth as a spirit; we dislike the connotations of the term. Actually what we object to is the conventional idea of a spirit, which is an extension of quite limited ideas of human personality, only projected more or less intact into an afterlife. You can say that Seth is a dramatization of the unconscious or an independent personality. Personally, I don’t see why the statements have to be contradictory. Seth may be a dramatization playing a very real role — explaining his greater reality in the only terms we can understand. This is my opinion at this time.

In what terms? Quite honestly, I don’t know. The closest I’ve come to explaining my own views was in a short intuitive statement I wrote for my ESP class, as I tried to clear my ideas for myself and my students as well. Rob had told me about the “Speakers”, as Seth calls them in this book — personalities who continually speak to man through the ages, reminding him of inner knowledge so that it is never really forgotten. This evocative idea inspired me to write the small piece which I am including here. It points up the framework in which I think Seth and others like him may exist.

[...] Only your rigid ideas of time and consciousness make these statements seem strange to you; for in a larger context, again, I can remember Seth Two. [...]

(“I go along wholeheartedly with Seth’s statement that reincarnation is as much a myth as a fact,” she said now, referring to an ESP class session. [...]

[...] He tried, however, to explain what had happened, and his position, but those who were not in on the conspiracy would not understand, and misread his statements.