“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

The individual involved is aware of very little as far as physical objects are concerned. There is, for example, a table in front of him. The table is real, it is physical. Under ordinary circumstances it could be seen and touched. Objects could be placed upon it; and yet, Doctor Instream, our entranced individual is not conscious of that table. In his state he is concentrating upon some object which we cannot see. Now, consider: we will attempt to prove the existence of this material table to this individual who is not aware of it. How, therefore, could we prove to him that this table exists, when he is not aware of it in any manner whatsoever? His attentions are focused elsewhere. For him the table does not exist. We have indeed a rather delightful dilemma; and yet, is this not what you require of me? I speak of “you” simply because I have come in contact with you. I recognize only too well your sympathy and your understanding. Nevertheless the situation in which you put me is exactly like the situation which I have only now described.

Your attentions are indeed focused elsewhere. You are in a trance as well as Ruburt is in a trance state now. This is far from unusual. I use you, dear Doctor Instream, only as an example. Consciousness of any kind is merely the direction in which the self looks. I told you this at our brief meeting. Consciousness is the focus, the direction of focus. Your ordinary consciousness is as much a trance state as any trance state induced through hypnotism. Therefore it is nearly impossible to convince a subject in trance that something he does not see exists.

Though objects upon the table be dearly familiar to him, in his trance state he will not recall them. Any sentiment involved with the objects on the table, such sentiment will disappear and have no meaning. The ordinary state of consciousness is no different from that trance state. You have merely turned the focus of your attention into different realities. My attention, and my reality, is mainly focused in another direction.

Adequate scientific proofs, such as science so surely needs, requires the enlargement of consciousness; not, my dear doctor, on my part, but on the part of science. There are some things that I can indeed do, and I will do what I can. Nevertheless the fact remains that I am indeed extending myself, and my dear doctor it is science which is not extending itself, and it is science that will not meet reality halfway.

I shall of course take advantage of the opportunity, but then you will have time to speak to me at your leisure. There are many points to be considered, and these matters certainly cannot be covered in one evening such as this. I hinted at our last discussion that it is indeed within the ability of the human personality to become aware of other realities while still keeping contact with physical reality. Manipulation in the physical universe is of course a necessity, but there are ways by which the human individual can become aware of other quite valid realities, and still maintain balance and control within his own more usual field of activity.

Therefore it is also highly difficult for me to prove my own existence to you, for you are not focused within my field of attention. You are focused within the physical universe. I will indeed go along with this endeavor. It is nevertheless a difficult one. I understand most thoroughly, my dear Doctor Instream; I know, again, with whom I am dealing. You, at this point in our acquaintanceship, have little to lose by being so kind to me, and so permissive and sympathetic in your attitude. I say this because we understand each other very well.

I do not imagine that this information will save the world. It will take more than myself and twenty gods beside to handle that problem. I do however insist that in my not too humble way, I can do something to set you right. And by right and by you I do not refer to you, Doctor Instream, but to humanity at large. I do not pretend, either, to know definitely what is right and what is wrong for your universe.

(The statue originated in the 12th century, and its name is not the same now as it was, Seth said. The statue represented the God of the Universe. There is some information on it in a book in the Elmira Library. The word Sense is involved here, Seth said according to my notes, although it may need translation. I do not remember why.

(Seth said that originally the statue was accepted as a gift by a missionary, a Father Hogan, in payment for healing the daughter of a chieftain. Father Hogan was 46 years old. It was carried by him to a shop in Hong Kong and sold. Father Hogan was a Jesuit. Seth said the statue is not an original dating from the 12th century; this one dates from the late 18th century. [Bill Gallagher later verified this, telling us that a professor of Tibetan art at Cornell University, in Ithaca where they had bought the statue, had so stated. Ithaca is some 35 miles northeast of Elmira, NY.]