“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(We’re still in the process of checking the copyedited manuscript for God of Jane, although we’re nearing the end of that job. Today Jane told me that she thought Seth would go into the famous—or infamous—disclaimer that Prentice-Hall wants to attach to Mass Events. We’d received a formal letter about that from the legal department of Prentice-Hall last Friday; today Jane had been “picking up” on it. I didn’t ask her what she’d learned; I thought it better to get the material in a session, if possible. Just before the session, Jane said that she thought Seth was “rather cavalier” in his attitude, and that my own wasn’t very good. She was only half joking.

Ruburt wondered the other day what my own attitude might be toward the famous disclaimer, and I began to tell him.

(Softly:) Your existence is protected, your works are protected. Those statements are self-evident to me, while you of course are still in the process of thinking them over, and trying to fit them into the context of life as you know it. To that extent, then, of course our attitudes would be different. In any case, when you were first working with Frameworks 1 and 2, you saw many examples of Framework 2’s activities, as they impinged into your reality, and you were quite pleased. Your living experiences often gave you clues one way or another that added to the thematic material.

When you realize that you are indeed protected, such issues are absorbed along the way. They are actually changed in character, so that they work for your benefit rather than against it. It is extremely difficult for me, however, to make you understand quite clearly the role that your own attitudes play—for when issues hit close to home you have both the old tendency to blame the other party or parties for what is involved.

(In our defenses here, I’ll digress a bit to note that although we may do that on occasion, Jane and I certainly do not blame others anything like we used to, or the way we still see others do. Our incidence is cut way down, in other words. Even when we do catch ourselves indulging, one might say, always in the backs of our minds lies the knowledge that, really, each of us creates our own reality, and are therefore participators in whatever events we may find ourselves enmeshed in—even those we dislike. This background knowledge has had profound effects upon us, of course.)

I am making no recommendations, but hopefully adding to the information that you have at hand, and offering another framework from which you can view the situation. Your feelings about it are as important as your actions. You have every right to call them on any points you desire, of course. (Long pause.) In the overall cultural picture (long pause), “psychic matters” are no longer as easy to dismiss as they used to be. People’s curiosity has been aroused, and the established methods of gaining knowledge have been found less than satisfactory—so in a fashion the idea of the disclaimer is a kind of backhanded recognition. You and your works are protected. Your lives are aware as they are meant to be. You have made no great errors in your lives. You are doing what is right for you. If you accept those statements as true, then you will begin to feel an emotional sense of rightness with yourselves. You will drop habits of self-disapproval. You can even take it for granted that intellectually you may not know all of the reasons (underlined) for your own actions.

To the extent that he questions his own natural protection. Give us a moment.... You are dealing with two issues also. The natural person—the creator, the artist—in Ruburt, wants the book out without any interruptions, and cares little about other issues. The socially knowledgeable person does not want to be taken for a fool, be insulted, and wants to be treated with respect. To some extent that is a simplification, of course. Nothing is that simple, but the explanation does serve to clarify contradictory issues. Certainly the entire affair is to be used creatively. Art, including writing, of course—creativity itself—is bound to be, as per the Cézanne passage (I’d called to Jane’s attention a couple of weeks ago) sometimes disruptive. It brings into being that which was not there before. It rearranges some aspects of the world, and it is in its fashion as brilliant as a child’s clear eye. It sees truth clearly. Because it does, art can often make disclosures that offend the pious, the well-mannered.

Ruburt’s own passages (in God of Jane) about the television preacher are a case in point. They upset him to some extent—not for himself, but because he did not want to hurt other people who so believed in the dogma that he was disclosing to the world. It is very important, then, that you learn to trust your own creativity and your own vision, and allow it its expression, for it will always lead to a more fulfilling vision. End of session. Unless you have another question.