“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Now. Our friend Ruburt has finally discovered the works of Dunne, I see, and he has also been reading Priestley on the subject of time.

Ruburt has not been reading Dunne, incidentally, but Priestley’s interpretation of Dunne, which is something else again, but fairly accurate.

I am glad that you did not encounter these ideas earlier, since we cannot therefore be justly accused of having borrowed any of them. Ruburt is amazed at some of the similarities that exist in the concept of time as I am giving it to you, and the concepts held by Dunne and Priestley.

Ruburt here is thinking of your monk. Because of my mention of the word missionary, this started a train of his personal associations.

For Ruburt has a grand idea. A great glimmering of enlightenment has hit him. I hope it did not hurt him; because while his idea is not right in one way, it is not wrong.

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.

Otherwise I should be all life force and no self. Now, I communicate through this level of Ruburt’s consciousness. It is subconscious to him or to his ego, but it is not without consciousness by any means. And again, I communicate through that level. At my own level this is not in itself difficult.

The difficulty lies in making this communication, which is direct from me, to what would be Ruburt’s time three self, clear to the time one self of Ruburt’s, which must speak these words, in what could be called Priestley’s time one.

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.

Now. While I am not Ruburt’s number six self, and I should know, this is not to say that I may not be Ruburt’s number eight or nine self.

Now. At some point you, Joseph, and Ruburt and myself, are part of the same entity. This entity is that synthesization that Dunne did not foresee, but it in no way implies a loss of individual identities. This is extremely difficult to explain, since when I use the word individual identity, I am not referring primarily to egotistical identity alone. As a matter of fact, I am in one way, and in one way only, a future self—this is extremely simplified—of Ruburt’s; that could be compared I suppose to a theoretical number twelve self, according to Dunne.

Now. In that respect I am closer to Ruburt than I am to you. However I have been connected with both of you in the past, and this is something for another night. And at that point of synthesization we will be part of the same entity.

(In the 201st session for October 25, Seth commented: “...and incidentally, Ruburt’s experience in psychological time was quite legitimate.” Jane’s account of Friday’s psy-time experience was included in the 201st session along with our drawing; it is repeated here, with the addition of the Gallagher’s comments and Peggy’s drawing.)