“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

The definition of course stands. I merely would like to be sure that the correct interpretation is given to the definition. The self, or a self, is not any particular thing, as I told you. It is true that there are no boundaries to enclose it within safe confines, where it can be said, “Here is the self.”

It is also true however that this lack of boundary allows for possibilities of development and expansion that would be impossible with a limited self. The self is not nebulous. Action changes itself, as we have described. Any self, therefore, is never the same self, but action contains within itself its own comprehension.

But as it is not wise to dispense with the idea of nationalism without gradual growths of understanding and preparation, and while the idea of nationalism cannot suddenly be dispensed with, so also the ego cannot be, and will not be, overthrown overnight; and even when it is finally left behind, it will still be used as a handy reference point; and through all this the self will not lose but gain, for all expansion outward, and expansion inward is a gain, and all boundaries, whether inward or outward, are hampering and limiting. Basically, the self is not limited. The self does not need imaginary fences to protect its privacy, or its safety or its solitude. Only the ego is afraid of challenge, and therefore speaks of such limiting safety.