“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

One concerns myself and where I would stand in this time framework, and you should find this highly interesting. The other has to do with Dunne, for in one instance he saw further than Priestley, for he carried these times further. But he also fell into an understandable error. For at some point the separate selves of Dunne’s, with their separate times, become aware of each other, and merge into the sort of superconsciousness that we have always called the entity.

These times do not go on indefinitely in the precise manner that Dunne thought. Neither do they stop as Priestley believes, at time three. There is a merging of selves into what you may call a superconsciousness, a synthesis; and from then on, dear friends, there is a beginning toward something new, and a something of which I am not prepared to speak this evening, but of which I shall speak in the near future.

I pick up the initials R. B.. The letter concerns a particular event, a meeting which has not yet occurred, and it concerns another person also, beside the person who wrote the letter, and beside Dr. Instream. That is, another person in particular, though more may be involved in the event when it occurs. (Pause.)

The letter is from someone in the south or southwest. Or the other person who will be connected with the meeting resides in the south or southwest. (Pause.)

Having read Priestley’s ideas about Dunne, Ruburt now wonders if I am not a future self of his own, according to Dunne’s ideas; that is, if I am not one of those future selves of which Dunne speaks, or if I am not consciousness number two, or three even, of Priestley’s concept.

Now I would be number six self, so to speak, according to Dunne. According to Priestley however, at this point in his theory, I would simply be that life force, or part of it, with no individuality. Priestley is more correct in depth however, though Dunne goes further, only to peter out. Nevertheless I would be a number six self. Using the same terms, however, I will make some distinctions. For as a number six self I have complete knowledge of all the other selves.

Now I could indeed be Ruburt’s number six self, you see. I am not, but I could be. It is entirely possible however, using Ruburt as an example, for Ruburt’s number six self, to communicate with Ruburt’s number one self; these communications sifting through the intervening selves however, and unfortunately. Now these various times of Priestley’s and Dunne’s have much in common with the planes of which I am speaking in our discussions, and the value fulfillment of our material is akin to Priestley’s insistence on depth within any given moment.

I do not believe that Dunne understood this. There is no serialization as he imagined, after a certain point, simply because this progression of selves through various times in a serial fashion is no longer necessary. The selves reach a point which is not a theoretical point, but a particular mathematically existent point, whereby these times and selves simply become one, or in our terms, an entity.

I must stress that individuality is never lost. But this is too complicated a subject to cover this evening. We have explained it rather adequately in terms of action however, and gestalts of selves do not imply a giving-up of individuality at all. It should be remembered here that reincarnation is simply a fact, and one which is not accepted by Priestley or Dunne.

—believe it or not. For we are actually, you see, part of the same entity now. Therefore, if you will bear with me, you represent one of the selves through which I must travel in order to communicate. Is this clear?

It is because of the peculiar connection of selves that our communications are possible. It is for the same reason that such communications are relatively rare, for many conditions and circumstances are necessary; and the number one self is made to bear strains unfamiliar to it, and to perceive data which does not make sense within its number one time system.

(See the notes on page 13 of the 200th session. Peggy’s sister was married on Saturday, October 16; the bride and groom left immediately for Puerto Rico on their honeymoon. Peggy and Bill left for Puerto Rico on vacation on Sunday, October 17. Jane and I were told that the two couples had no plans to meet in Puerto Rico, oddly enough; we recall Peggy saying for instance that she would not want to honeymoon with relatives close by. But these plans were obviously changed, the two couples soon meeting in San Juan.)

(“You will meet a man you do not like” is one of the advance predictions given Peggy by Seth during the unscheduled session of December 3. Jane and I have wondered what part suggestion might play in such a case. Peggy told us she had also been aware of this, and that she could say that her dislike of the individual in question transcended any suggestion that conceivably could be operating.)

(In the unscheduled session for December 3 Seth said Peggy would meet a woman dressed in green. Peggy met no such woman. After the cocktail party however, Peggy found she couldn’t remember the color of Mrs. Carlyle’s dress. She checked by phone; Mrs. Carlyle had worn a red dress. Later note by RFB: Red and green are opposites on the artisit’s color wheel.)

([Peggy:] “Yes.” Peggy attended such a banquet. It was held in the same executive conference room as all the other seminar meetings; as stated, tables were long and narrow, with theater-type chairs. Lunch was also served at these tables each day).

(Peggy thought the group was very rude. The group was silenced by Shriver and told to wait for a later meeting with him. The group itself, Peggy said, was obviously very angry. The incident occurred Wednesday at 5 PM.)

An event at eight, last evening, in a different room than the room in which a previous meeting was held, that she attended.

([Peggy:] “No. All meetings at the seminar were held in the same room.”)

(Peggy said she attended two meetings at Camp Kilmer that were held in a moderate-sized auditorium.)