“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(John Bradley was a witness to the session. John had two questions for Seth—one concerning himself, and one about a pet dog that had recently been killed. Seth deals with the questions in the session.)

This was reflected in other portions of the body as well. As you noted, you felt off balance subjectively, and unsure. Now. You had grown used to smoking as a way of comforting yourself. You removed the comfort. You refused to add another, and at the same time you did not face the inner problem that was bothering you, that made the comfort so necessary to begin with. We will go into this more deeply, for you can indeed rid yourself of the symptoms, but I would like to make one point here first. When you bought the dog, subconsciously you felt that the dog was almost a symbol of your failure.

You had not wanted such a dog until you had room and a larger place, and in the past you had not gotten the dog because subconsciously you hoped you would have more land within a brief, foreseeable future. When you bought the dog, and particularly since your wife was so for the idea, you feared that she also took this as a sign that you had made your mind up to the fact, or faced the fact, that you would be where you are for some time.

The family all knew, subconsciously again, that the dog had to go. Everyone was overly nice to the dog, so no one would know consciously, what they knew subconsciously—that you considered the dog the symbol of failure. It was a closely guarded secret by all, hidden, but not entirely, from the conscious minds of those involved. No one wanted the dog killed, but it was not coincidence that you yourself loosened the dog’s collar, or that your wife was the one who left the dog; for symbolically the two of you were connected here. Now give us a moment. The act itself was symbolic, and the dog picked up all of your attitudes through its own sense of communication.

The failure was being rejected, you see. Now the dog was a hunting dog. Symbolically you have always equated hunting with a man’s work in modern society. That was one connection. You would not feel free to hunt successfully with the animal, for he was, you felt, the symbol of an unsuccessful hunt in the work world.

Each member of the family picked this up. The dog had to be loved. It was a face-saving gesture. No one wanted you to know, and all of this now on a subconscious basis. Under the conditions that were then in operation, and underline that, for you all to have accepted the dog for any length of time would have been an admission and acceptance of failure.

The dog had to go, but it had to appear accidental. And this is exactly what happened. Now we will take up the dog’s death later, but give us a moment. The threads of activity are so enmeshed, and I see them as a whole, and must unravel them for you. As Joseph said earlier this is not to say you cannot have a dog, and enjoy him, with a different attitude.

([John:] “You said you would say something about the dog’s death.”)

He sensed the rejection sometime earlier, through various cues given, and the animal knew that the rejection would take place, if not on that occasion then another. Now the driver wanted to strike out violently but could never admit this to himself, hence an accidental affair. The dog was disconsolate, and as distracted as a human being might be. The affair involved many people, and was a reality constructed by many people.