“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

The young woman, Frances (Gardella), who wrote Ruburt, with no evidence was certain she would be followed—tomorrow if not today. I want to point out that faith is not all that unusual, but a prime element in your life. You can have faith that you will be ill. This should be obvious, because for example there are healthy people also, with no evidence of any disease, who have utter faith that disease is hidden within them, or swiftly approaching.

Later he wonders what happened, that his life was saved, and his plans altered at the last moment. Our friend wanted to live and had faith that he would. In spite of his own conscious lack of knowledge, he was brought to operate according to the information available in Framework 2, though he was not aware of it. He lost his ticket—a stupid error, it seemed. The lives and events of all those involved with his trip—the neighbors, the children, and so forth—all of those issues were arranged in Framework 2, so that while the events seemed most unpleasant, they were highly beneficial.

If our friend learned of the plane crash, he saw this only too well. If he never learned of the plane crash, and did not have faith in the beneficial nature of events, then he might simply remember the entire affair as highly unpleasant, stupid, and even think that it was another example that he could do nothing right.

The entire Cézanne book was inherent in the first page. Ruburt’s faith and habits allowed the initial impulse its freedom, and that impulse, expressed, carried within it the means of its own fulfillment, and the book unfolded.

What you have seen lately are just beginning sentences in Ruburt’s condition. The body intends to follow through. In the past you put into Framework 2 your intent, individually and jointly. It was ill-formed, not certain, cluttered by questions like “If I am well, should I go on tour or shouldn’t I?” Or “Will I lose working time?” or whatever. It was not clear intent, really, on either of your parts.

It was constantly questioned. At best, it got you a status quo. (Long pause.) I do not want you to blame yourselves for the following, but I do want to point out that in the past, when Ruburt began to show improvements of a significant nature, you fell back into old habits. The status quo meant, with your attitudes, that you could not trust improvements.

Since you did not clearly state your intents for, say, normal walking and flexibility, and had little faith in it, then you feared that improvements could not be trusted, for in your experience they went so far and no further. Yet any poor performance was taken by Ruburt, particularly, as evidence in the other direction. You were caught between the ideal and a very poor performance, one contrasting with the other.

To you the hall was a neutral-enough meeting place, but not one of intimacy, and to some extent at least it symbolized the relationship—at least as far as you were concerned—in that while you were a child of your parents you felt to some degree a stranger, and the hall lacked intimacy. The dream was a statement of those particular feelings.

The meeting itself was quite legitimate. You were like people who visited the same building for different reasons. Now that is the end of the session unless you have questions.

(The following may be one of those incidents from Framework 2 that Seth advised being on the lookout for: Last week I rather seriously thought of ordering a copy of The Origin of Ccs In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Jaynes. I saw the book listed in a catalog from which I was ordering some other books, and nearly included it in the order. I’ve been curious about it ever since it was published —last year, I believe—for from the reviews printed of it I believe it contains some material that may be a distorted version of Seth’s “sleepwalker” material in Volume 2 of “Unknown” Reality.