“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Now: all in all, the overall systems of conventional belief are relatively simple, and serve to define reality by numbering as truths or facts certain kinds of events, therefore accepting them as legitimate furniture for the mind.

The idea of the Sinful Self came into play here, for if the material was not true, then in that framework it must necessarily be false—or at the least very misleading. This led to many questions. Is creativity itself involved in a kind of mischievous lying? All of those questions make sense in a framework in which the dictums of one belief system—Christianity—are accepted as true, and everything that does not agree with them is accepted as falsehood.

This applies not only to seemingly “pure” objective events, but to the more complicated event of an individual psychological being. Indeed, the entirety of your own identities does not usually appear to you in your lifetimes, because that reality is too complicated, too multidimensional, to fit into your accepted picture of personhood. In that regard the larger facts would not show themselves. There would be no way for you to perceive them from within (underlined) your system of reality.

(Long pause.) In that regard, the attempt to be too literal is of no benefit. Religions have gone astray, of course, by insisting upon the literal interpretation of symbolic material. I am not saying that there are no greater facts, but that those greater facts cannot be contained within your system as themselves.

(Long pause.) You are in the position of living in the ordinary world, while sensing those other fields of actuality in which that world has its existence. The Sinful Self idea can be detrimental in particular when it is faced by experience that must necessarily fall outside of its realm of reference. Both church and science, again, possess a deep suspicion of unofficial or revelatory knowledge, for this must necessarily involve the insertion of new information into a system unable to explain any facts but its own.

(9:34.) The same kind of recognizable standards that are normally applied to the true-or-false category do not work for such knowledge, since that knowledge is basically, automatically large enough to contain the entire true-or-false realm itself—that is, revelatory information puts true and false designations side by side, and ends up with a system large enough to contain both, in which each are seen as valid constructs that are only part of a larger view of psychological events.

(Pause.) In that regard, the questions of Ruburt’s “Sinful Self” must indeed seem to it most alarming, for it possesses no frame of reference in which its own questions can be answered. These very passages are meant to help open the door of understanding, so that the Sinful Self itself can understand why it feels as it does, so that it can also realize that there are other systems in which its questions can at least be considered.