“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

I am speaking now for your convenience simply. There are four cornerstone personalities involved in your seminar. Now three of these personalities are yours: one is not yours. One is not “yours" in your terms as of this time. When you look up and recognize, you will accept that which you do not now recognize as yourself, as yourself. If you looked up now, you would not recognize the self that you will recognize. Because the Spacious Present exists as it is, the recognition has already been made. You have not yet caught up with it, you see. You are slowpokes. My friend Ruburt in many respects is also a slowpoke. The environment is not where you think it is. I refer to these seminars. The voice that does not “speak" in your terms is yours, but the instructor is not yourself as you know yourself. It is a self you do not as yet know in your terms.

Now I speak from several layers, though the word “speak" is a poor one, I turn myself, you see, into steps down which I walk and the steps represent what you would term personality fragments, though the term is distortive. I speak on a level that you can all understand. I have been to your seminar—not your seminar—but ones much like them in what you would term the past. I attend my own and I give my own. I am broken up into highly energized personality fragments of my own accord, you see. The breaking up itself is an illusion. Those who wish to learn will be found by others like me—individualized and equipped because of their own internal structures to communicate and to receive communications from them. You must have your own circuit through.

Now I will not be any old fogy this evening. I would prefer some lively conversation and I am indeed open to any questions that you might have.

([Gene]: “And would it not be true to say that we are all running the same seminar for ourselves since we are all one?”)

It would, as long as you realized that the self you are as you know yourself now does not run the seminar. I speak in terms of your time.

He as he is now would not agree.

([Gene]: “But as he really is, would he not agree?”)

You are all pieces, you see, of the whole; but you are not all the same pieces of the whole, but rather individualized pieces of the whole. You do not all fit together like a crossword puzzle that any idiot can put together. You are still highly individualized portions of the whole. You are the whole, but you are all highly unique. You fit into different portions of the whole. The self or structure or personality travels outward and inward and (if you will forgive me) in all directions. It is action. It constantly changes. Each self as you know it has its own abilities and inclinations and sympathies. It has its own particular place within the Pyramid Gestalt. It can contact that whole self which in your terms does not yet exist, but which is of course always present. In your search you must contact that whole portion of yourself toward which you are growing—toward which I hope you are growing. This is your individual circuit, so to speak. All ways are one way, but your way is your own way. And you can travel no other. He is—Baba—highly advanced indeed. He is a way, however; he is not the end. He is not completed. He is right, but he is wrong in taking pleasure in his rightness. (I have never been known for my own humility. It ill-behooves me to speak.) Nevertheless he who is and knows that he is, is. He has no need for words and he has no need to proclaim himself, for he speaks without the necessity for words and he is heard. Those who are really heard have no need for words. I speak to you now in words because without words now, there would not be the necessary understanding that must be reached before I can become wordless.

([Gene]: “I do. May we pursue that point a bit? We would like to create a sort of school—a very simple kind of school—to help anyone who seeks for it, without presuming that we have any answers, but going on the assumption that the way which has been proclaimed by many men is a good way—namely the simple way of love. I presume that you know about the idea that we have for creating such circuits. Will they work? If not, what are their major shortcomings? What would you recommend?”)

([Gene]: “I would prefer not to call it a utopia.”)

These are impressions: two people in particular. (Am not sure here.) One older than the others—perhaps (now, perhaps) 48—some difficulty and misunderstandings connected with him. A “D" and an “H". The project can succeed if purity of intent is retained. There is someone I believe approximately 23 years old who would be dropped.

([Gene]: “Would it be a fair guess that it would be a garbled pronunciation of the last name?”)

(All of the Seth data verified by Gene Bernard at work, Smith—Miss, etc. Smith, a 23-year-old, feminine characteristics, dominating mother. Smith has brown hair, is overenthusiastic, according to Gene he could very well cause trouble, and if so the trouble would be legal. Gene didn’t say what type of legal trouble, that I recall. Gene surprised and pleased, as Jane was, at this data.

([Gene]: “Suppose someone has yet to learn who they are? I am afraid we are quibbling over teaching techniques. Let me put a question bluntly. What would you do in my shoes?”)

([Gene]: “As a teacher, what advice would you give on pedagogical techniques?”)

([Gene]: “Would you agree with the following? As Krishna says to Arjuna: There is no place to go; you’re already there. There are no chasms—only a crack which is trivial. There is nothing to do. It is already done.”)

([Gene]: “What would you call it?”)

To give it a name is unfortunate. We have not used a name in our sessions. I would call it IGNAPTHA, which is a poor approximation of the term I am trying to express. In your terms perhaps the whole self constantly expressing itself and that which is knowing itself in all its possibilities.

This is what he would have you believe he refers to. Indeed. And if I have ever given a double-tongued answer, I have given it now. For I know him, you see.

([Gene]: “Yes. You’ve been giving me difficult answers to difficult questions. Now let’s try the most difficult. I would like to state a proposition and get your response to it. We have been chasing a point—you and I—and it is my feeling that at the level at which we have been chasing it, it is not possible for me to really understand the point and moreover that at the level at which I should like to understand the point, there is indeed nothing to discuss. Does this make any sense?”)