“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

The dramas themselves do express certain inner realities, and they serve as surface reminders to those who do not trust direct experience with the inner self. They will take the symbols as reality. When they discover that this is not so, they feel betrayed. Christ spoke in terms of the father and son because in your terms, at that time, this was the method used — the story he told to explain the relationship between the inner self and the physically-alive individual. No new religion really startles anyone, for the drama has already been played subjectively.

What I have said, of course, applies as much to Buddha as it does to Christ: Both accepted the inner projections and then tried to physically represent these. They were more, however, than the sum of those projections. This also should be understood. Mohammedanism fell far short. In this case the projections were of violence predominating. Love and kinship were secondary to what indeed amounted to baptism and communion through violence and blood.

(During break I went over a few questions about the relationships between the three members of the Christ entity — John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and Paul. After listening for a bit, Jane asked me not to pursue this subject now; she suggested I ask these questions at the end of the chapter, if Seth hadn’t volunteered the answers before then. Resume at 10:13.)

The ego feared for its position, frightened that it would dissolve back into the inner self from which it came. Yet in its emergence it provided the inner self with a new kind of feedback, a different view not only of itself; but through this, the inner self was able to glimpse possibilities of development of which it had not previously been aware. In your terms, by the time of Christ, the ego was sure enough of its position so that the projected picture of God could begin to change.