“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Her material this afternoon concerned “the reconciliation of the Sinful Self and its transformation into the innocent self that it was before it was undermined —indoctrinated—with negative beliefs.” I think it’s excellent material, and designed to lead to fuller understandings of the whole symptom situation, and perhaps some sort of resolution. I said that even if the new innocence was achieved by the Sinful Self, it would be a different kind of innocence because it would contain all of the “Sinful Self’s earlier convolutions” as it went through its stages, striving toward that renewed innocence. Memory of that struggle would linger, I thought.

(An interesting debate emerged between us as we waited for the session to begin. When Jane read her material of this afternoon to me, I thought she likened the Sinful Self’s renewal to reincarnation, meaning that she thought this renewal might account for many of our overt ideas of reincarnation—that at least some of our ideas about reincarnation were based upon our intuitive knowledge of the return of portions of one’s self to that earlier state of innocence—a rebirth, in other words, that we might translate into the idea of physical incarnation. So when I agreed with Jane this afternoon, it was partly for that reason.

(Long pause.) The original ideas connected with the Sinful Self’s beliefs were at one time, for example, not as obviously unfortunate, since the system itself also provided for salvation, methods of appeasement and so forth—all of which were thoroughly accepted through many centuries.

(8:57.) In Ruburt’s case, the Sinful Self was the remnant, psychologically speaking, and the same applies to many within your society.

(Long pause.) Those creative elements of personality must then to some extent or another finally communicate with the “Sinful Self” directly—sympathetically embrace that self (pause) as the part of personality that first accepted cultural and religious beliefs with all of their negative and positive influences. The more creative portion of personality must then realize that in a fashion it exists because the Sinful Self did. Those negative beliefs then no longer seem so frightening. The taboos within lose their power, and the Sinful Self is seen as (long pause)representing the stage of growth through which the self is passing (intently).

It is then transformed into what it was before such indoctrination by the culture. Then it was the innocent self, of course. This understanding helps release that energy for the use of the entire personality, as Ruburt’s paper correctly states. The personality is then free to explore and assimilate greater areas of original knowledge. You actually have the innocent self in a kind of second stage, for now it has the experience of the Sinful Self behind it.

The short paper he wrote today, and my last session, should help here, for we are speaking of the transformation of the Sinful Self, sympathetically, as it is seen as a psychological structure of growth and change—a stage through which the self traveled—one that is no longer necessary and can now instead turn to a new state of innocence.

(I was pleased by Seth’s comments on the DMSO. I’d been thinking that it could hardly be a coincidence that Jane has been getting the Sinful Self material, that Peggy G. wrote the article about the DMSO in the paper, that the paper carried the ad where we could order it, and that we’d decided to try it at this time....)