“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

In your mind making money is a male characteristic, and subconsciously a male prerogative. The fact that you painted and it did not seem to bring you money served further to make you distrust these creative abilities. You identified them to some extent with your mother, the first female of course in your background. She was unpredictable, and so you felt you could not depend upon your art, nor count upon it as a man. (Much louder.)

Now commercial work and the comics meant something else again. It was not fine art but directed outward in obvious fashions in an aggressive sort of thrust, with a particular market in mind, and therefore to you had a masculine quality. You were perfectly free to support yourself in your early years in that way, and your energy was released because in that regard you felt free to use it. When the natural freely creative energies were aroused in you, you instantly dispensed with all ideas of a commercial market, and completely divorced the idea of painting from selling for the reasons given.

In your relationship as a couple then you set up a framework in which freedoms allowed to one were compensated until certain adjustments were made. The creative aspects were given so much leeway, until out of fear one of you applied restraints of a restrictive nature. The painting to you had such strongly feminine connotations that subconsciously you felt your studio was like a womb, out of which the paintings were produced. You felt that this had some (underlined) terrifying implications, many of them threatening your sense of masculinity since, because of your misconceptions you were convinced ahead of time that they would never be used as a means of livelihood.

(I pointed to a painting I had just finished, of a male looking up and to my left. It had a strong appeal for me, and was almost a monochrome, done in blues and greens. I felt it had some sort of reincarnational meaning for me, but hadn’t yet got around to using the pendulum to see what I could find out on my own.

(“Can you say anything about that painting?”)

I can indeed. Now in your paintings, many of them, you merge the male and female characteristics—the feminine compassion and intuition often appearing as it does here in a male face.

You do not paint the faces of females as a rule, because of the ideas of which I have just told you. Whenever you show the so-called feminine qualities of insight or compassion, you show them as appearing in the male profile, where they are seen opaquely and not faced full on. You feel they need the male discipline to give them a suitable framework, and to define them. Without this you feel them threatening. This also has something to do with your feelings toward oils under certain conditions (underlined).

(In trance, Jane pointed to the new painting.) The picture is of a man, or rather of a woman who lived in Constantinople in the 14th century. A mystic of some renown who was well-known for looking into the future.

I A N O D I A L A (spelled) is the nearest I can come in translation for the name. You painted her as a male for the reasons given.

(I shook my head no. Actually I had several about the new painting, but my writing hand was so cramped I felt I wouldn’t be able to continue using it much longer.)