“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

But according to Seth, no individuality is ever lost. It is always in existence. The tricky point here is that the self has no boundaries except those it accepts out of ignorance. Our individual consciousness grows, and out of its experience it forms different “personalities” or fragments of itself. These fragments—Jane Roberts is one of them—are entirely independent as to action and decision, yet the inner psychic components are constantly in communication with the whole self of which they are part. These “fragments” themselves grow, develop, and may form their own entities or “personality gestalts”—or, if you prefer, whole souls.

That night Seth was just beginning his material on personality as action. The ideas he presented are basic to his overall theories of identity, and since he deals with some of the characteristics of consciousness, they are also a basis for later material on the God concept.

“Identity may be termed action which is conscious of itself. For the purposes of our discussion, the terms ‘action’ and ‘identity’ must be separated, but basically no such separation exists. An identity is also a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action upon itself—and through this interweaving of action with itself, through this re-action, an identity is formed.

“The energy of action, the workings of action within and upon itself, forms identity. Yet though identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated. Identity, then, is action’s effect upon itself. Without identity, action would be meaningless, for there would be nothing upon which action could act. Action must, by its very nature, of itself and its own workings, create identities. This applies from the most simple to the most complex.

“Once more, action is not a force from without that acts upon matter. Action is, instead, the inside vitality of the inner universe—it is the dilemma between inner vitality’s desire and impetus to completely materialize itself, and its inability to completely do so.

“This first dilemma results in action, and from action’s own workings upon itself we have seen that identity was formed, and that these two are inseparable. Action is, therefore, a part of all structure. Action, having of itself and because of its nature formed identity, now also because of its nature would seem to destroy identity, since action must involve change, and any change seems to threaten identity.

“It is this dilemma, between identity’s constant attempts to maintain stability and action’s inherent drive for change, that results in the imbalance, the exquisite creative by-product that is consciousness of self. For consciousness and existence do not result from delicate balances so much as they are made possible by lack of balances, so richly creative that there would be no reality were balance ever maintained.

“We have a series of creative strains. Identity must seek stability while action must seek change; yet identity could not exist without change, for it is the result of action and a part of it. Identities are never constant as you yourselves are not the same consciously or unconsciously from one moment to the next. Every action is a termination, as we discussed earlier. And yet without the termination, identity would cease to exist, for consciousness without action would cease to be conscious.

“Consciousness, therefore, is not a ‘thing’ in itself. It is a dimension of action, an almost miraculous state, made possible by what I choose to call a series of creative dilemmas.

“It should be fairly easy to see how the second dilemma evolved from the first. I have said that the second one resulted in—and constantly results in—consciousness of self. This is not ego consciousness. Consciousness of self is still consciousness directly connected with action. Ego consciousness is a state resulting from the third creative dilemma, which happens when consciousness of self attempts to separate itself from action. Since this is obviously impossible, since no consciousness or identity can exist without action, we have the third dilemma.

“Again: consciousness of self involves a consciousness of self within—and as a part of—action. Ego consciousness, on the other hand, involves a state in which consciousness of self attempts to divorce self from action—an attempt on the part of consciousness to perceive action as an object … and to perceive action as initiated by the ego as a result, rather than as a cause, of ego’s own existence.

“These three dilemmas represent three areas of reality within which inner vitality can experience itself. And here also we have the reason why inner vitality can never achieve complete materialization. The very action involved in vitality’s attempt to materialize itself adds to the inner dimension of vitality itself.

“Action [inner vitality] can never complete itself. Materializing in any form whatsoever, it at once multiplies the possibilities of further materialization. At the same time, because inner vitality is self-generating, only a minute fraction of it is needed to seed a universe.

“In line with the statement made earlier that action necessarily changes that which it acts upon [which is basically itself], then it follows that the action involved in our sessions changes the nature of the sessions. I have spoken often of consciousness as the direction in which a self focuses. Action implies infinite possibilities of focus.”

As Seth delivered the material you have just read, I had a series of continuing experiences that were new to me. I couldn’t tell Rob about them until our breaks, of course, and indeed, they are nearly impossible to describe. The nearest I can come is to say that as this information was being given verbally to Rob, it was given to me in a different way also. I seemed to be inside “action,” drifting through various dimensions.

Toward the end of the session, Rob asked Seth if he’d explain what was happening. Seth said: “Ruburt is experiencing action gestalts. Like every other consciousness, he is action; but this evening he is experiencing action, to some small degree, without the ego’s usual attempt to separate itself [from action].

Seth says that the physical body and its senses are specialized equipment to allow us to live in physical reality. To perceive other realities, we have to use the Inner Senses—methods of perception that belong to the inner self and operate whether or not we have a physical form. Seth calls the universe as we know it a “camouflage” system, since physical matter is simply the form that vitality—action—takes within it. Other realities are also camouflage systems, and within them consciousness also has specialized equipment tailored to their peculiar characteristics. But the Inner Senses allow us to see beneath the camouflage.

“In other words, the past and present are real to the same extent. On occasion the past can become more ‘real’ than the present, and in such cases past actions are reacted to in what you call the present. You take it for granted that present action can change the future, but present actions can also change the past.

“I am speaking in your terms now, and this should be understood, as I am simplifying conditions considerably. A change of attitude, a new association, or any of innumerable other actions will automatically set up new electromagnetic connections and break others.

“Every action changes every other action—we go back to our ABC’s. Therefore, every action in your present affects those actions you call past. Ripples from a thrown stone go out in all directions, and I am going out rather far on the limb myself right here. Remembering what you know of the nature of time, you realize that the apparent boundaries between past, present, and future are only illusions caused by the amount of action you can physically perceive.

“Again: the past is as real as the future, no more or no less. For the past exists only as a pattern of electromagnetic currents within the mind and brain, and these constantly change. … An individual’s future actions are not dependent upon a concrete finished past, for such a past never existed.”