“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.

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.