“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

As the physical atoms and molecules combine to form cells, and the cells to form physical organs, and as they do not lose their individuality in so doing, and as the atoms and molecules themselves actually gain and share in higher perceptions because of this gestalt, so do the basic components or fragments of an entity constantly form new and varied personalities; and these in turn form entities of their own.

There is indeed no contradiction, though it may appear so, in the fact that all entities existed before your planet was formed, and the fact that fragments form new entities. I have told you that your conception of cause and effect is faulty and antiquated, and I have said that the cause and effect theory is logical only as a result of your theory of time and continuity. If time as you think of it does not exist, and it does not, then the cause and effect theory does not follow.

I have told you that all consciousnesses exist in the spacious present, which is spontaneous while also durable. Then it is no contradiction to say that entities existed before the birth of your planet, though in your time it seems that new ones are being brought to consciousness.

In their materialization upon your plane, and as seen from your own camouflage perspective, you seem to be aware of new entities, but this is because of your own limited viewpoint. In your time scheme entities have had time to produce more fragmentary personalities, but in truth from your viewpoint these personalities can be seen to have changed long ago.

I also said that new entities were being formed, but in the framework of the spacious present all this is spontaneous. The contradiction seems a contradiction only on your terms. On my terms there is none. For practical purposes you may say, in truth on your own terms, that entities simply have had time to develop further personalities. But I want it understood that this is true only within your own time framework.

You have read of so-called mediums—and I detest the term—speaking gibberish, the explanation being given that the so-called spirit could not come through. Nevertheless so-called gibberish in such an instance merely represents, when it is legitimate, the fact that no new comprehensions or knowledge can be so transmitted entirely by the means of an entity speaking from another plane.

(Intrigued by Jane’s delivery of the word extral, I checked Webster’s Unabridged for 1951. The prefix extral was not listed, nor was extralvalue; but extralimitary, meaning outside the limit or boundary, was. It might be said that the overtones of the two words, extralvalue and extralimitary, were the same. Jane speculated that since she had studied Latin in high school Seth might have used her own subconscious knowledge to coin a new word.

(It will be remembered that Philip is the name given by Seth as John Bradley’s entity. John had not mentioned to us that he felt changes were imminent in his company, Searle Drug, but after the session he noted that such might well be the case. Searle was facing stiff competition in a market that now favored the buyer, John said, and new methods and perhaps new personnel were called for to meet the problem.