“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(We sat for the session at 8:10. We wanted Seth to comment on the DMSO, and on Jane’s very swollen right foot. [The left foot has lost some of its original swelling, and now appears much better by contrast.] I told Jane I thought Seth was correct in the deleted session for June 24, 1981, in which he said the swelling effect helps cushion the new motion of some joints, so there is no grating. I also told her I thought another reason applied, however, one that led to the swelling to begin with. She is waiting apprehensively to see what the public’s reaction to God of Jane is. Although a few hundred copies of this book may have been shipped, it hasn’t really come out yet. The idea had come to me some days ago that Jane’s foot troubles were directly related to her fears of being accepted in a controversial role. “I thought you knew something like that was going on.” I said. She shook her head: “I don’t know what I think. I’d like him to say something about the DMSO, and that material I got this afternoon, and maybe the foot....”)

(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.

(But tonight she maintained that she’d never mentioned the subject of reincarnation in her paper, and that she hadn’t meant reincarnation in that sense at all. So I was left frustrated, wondering what she’d said that I had mistranslated into that word. After being initially upset, I rather humorously thought that my idea wasn’t a bad one anyhow.

(9:19. Long pause.) Ruburt is trying to move outside of the picture entirely. Only by so doing, of course, can the larger avenues of knowledge be opened and made available to the society—or to the self. For many centuries creativity itself was firmly directed by Christianity, and to some extent (underlined) Christianity brings with it an air of uneasiness for society—to the extent that any original thought or insight must indeed imply an intrusive force to a world that must exist in a rare balance that is the result of preserving old values and obtaining new knowledge.