“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Friday evening Jane and I were visited by a psychologist [Ed Ostrander] from Cornell, after an exchange of letters over a period of several months. I’m afraid that the encounter was typical of others we’ve had with the members of academia, and once again we were rather taken by surprise. It wasn’t until the next day that we realized the visit had upset us more than we knew, because of the various connotations aroused. Although we liked him personally, we came to understand that he used words as a barrier to any real communication, asked Jane few questions. At the same time he thought himself liberal-minded, he repeatedly couched Seth’s ideas in the terms used by the respected, well-known members of his profession. He told us often that while he liked a good idea “no matter where it came from,” he wouldn’t use Seth’s name in conversations with others, but would try to work in Seth’s ideas under the guise of others’ works. Jane and I were slow: we didn’t realize that such thinking should have been challenged by us on the spot. Instead, we passively let it go by.

(In sum, we probably got exactly what we expected out of the deal, although it was certainly valuable as a reminder of how the psychic field and its members are regarded by the “straight” scientific community. Ed called himself a “closet” devotee of psychic matters. But Jane and I have seen the pattern demonstrated again and again: the visitor walks in the door, starts talking, usually about himself or herself, and seldom stops until leaving x-number of hours later. Although we now see that we should have said more—interrupted more—such behavior doesn’t appear to be too easy for us, whether because of beliefs or what. But we don’t really feel like confronting guests. At the same time, we end up wishing we’d done exactly that, so we feel caught in some ways that we don’t think others have to bother with, or understand in life.

(By way of reactions, we thought of improving our behavior in any such future encounters, insistently if necessary, and of preparing for them by informing would-be visitors that they’d have to read a selected list of books beforehand. We would add that the books alone would indicate how different our thinking was from the usual, and that the visitor wouldn’t find us agreeing with much of what they might want to say. Such an approach meant that we’d be hard to deal with, I suppose, but at least all would be forewarned.

(Ideas of authority as represented by Ed were obviously involved. Jane actually reacted better to some of the things he said than I did, to her credit, but I’m sure we can do much better. Half the problem is that we don’t see the people often enough to begin with. Even after all this time, then, we can still be caught unprepared.

Authority, generally speaking, is necessary for society’s survival—but it does not exist of itself. Authority is always vested in a person, organization, or whatever, by other people for a variety of reasons. But overall authority is meant to insure continuity, the status quo. It will always be “undermined” by creativity, and the search for another, newer version of reality.

You both grew up under certain authorities—the personal authority of the parents, and the greater authority—or Ruburt at least—of the church and state. For you, the church had little authority, but the state is vested with authority that must uphold the composite idea of reality generally held.

Your friend—Professor “Crazies”—thought himself on the one hand very avant-garde to come here, and on the other he felt the need to protect himself, to maintain the stance of a professor. You should indeed have spoken more freely, but you also should have seen him simply as an individual, and not as a symbol of a school, or a structure, or as a scientist.

When this happens, you become part of a creative surge. Enough people are interested, or the books would not be read, so emotion grows. Many of those people, however, in say businesses or professions, would automatically try to grasp the new ideas with one hand, while protecting themselves from any consequences with the other: “I know these ideas seem crazy, but -” or, in the case of your professor, “I collect my crazies, but those people are authentic.”

Ruburt dislikes authority. He lived under the authority of Welfare, as well as the church. That dislike was to serve as an impetus, as it did, but the adult should see—the adult Ruburt—that there is no authority in those terms. There is nothing to fight in those terms. The authorities are simply people doing their best to preserve a status quo—with which many are already dissatisfied. Their authority becomes a trap for them, for to preserve it they must keep themselves in ignorance.

Religious authority, when completely exercised, can be disastrous, for it sets up an unyielding set of principles as absolute truth, and any dissension is considered dangerous. (Amused:) With my nearly forgotten experience as a minor pope, I can say I would trust a crooked politician far better than a holy but fanatic religious leader.

In the deepest of terms, each person must be his or her own authority, and equally respect but not bow down to, the same innate psychic authority within each other living individual. That should be the basis for your democracy.

Now in our sessions I must unfortunately try to explain the greater aspects of reality in terms of a Framework 1 culture, with its psychic conventions. I must go against the authority, not only of the so-called straight system, but against the authority of the conventionalized occult in its multitudinous variations.

There, I lived in the land people called Atlantis in your past. The Atlantis, however, as it is known in myth and pseudo-fact, is a psychic structure from the future that sheds its light backward into the past, and illuminates not one but several past cultures, which taken together, become in your terms a conglomerate Atlantis.

The Atlanteans, so-called for example, are supposed to be coming back now. All concepts and ideas in the first place, referring to a continuous forward progression of time distort all reincarnational experiences as a rule. It is almost impossible to describe some of what I know. Simple facts to me sometimes appear quite clearly in the material I give you—but then I perceive that the particular information escapes you completely. I can say that I traveled in Rome at about the time of Christ. To me there is no contradiction between that statement and the statement that the reality of that Rome is even now being affected by present, current concepts and beliefs. The past changes, even as in your terms, say, a river does—only the changes go out in all directions. Atlantis is as real as tomorrow is—and that is a loaded statement.

(10:23.) Give us a moment... When you speak of reincarnation, the past is usually considered, as you have yourself often noted. I told you that in certain terms this was the last life for each of you, your breaking-off points. But that does not mean there are not future lives in earthly terms for you. If all of your lives are looked at like a Ferris wheel, then this is the seat you are in when you get off, though some of the other boxes or seats may be labeled future or past.