“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

As human beings we live suspended between life and death. We share this with the animals. It is a condition of our existence. But animals, as far as we know, do not anticipate their own death, or wonder about their status before birth. Their present is the moment.

We would exist in this other dimension of time whether we knew it or not, of course, just as our cat exists in my four o’clock in the afternoon, without ever understanding what a clock is. In a way, the cat is more nearly right than I am, because clock-time is an artificial device, and he’ll have nothing to do with it. Suppose, as Seth maintains, that past, present, and future are also artificial devices, divisions superimposed over a spacious moment in which all action is simultaneous.

And what about the future? Perhaps it consists of events already in existence in this Spacious Present; events that we have conveniently decided not to contend with “as yet.” According to Seth events are not concrete in any case, but plastic, and initially they are always mental. Some we form into physical realities, in which case we follow through with the process mentioned above. Others we do not handle at all in this dimension. They never even enter our past, present, or future reference.

Are we biologically unable to perceive any of these events, or do we have psychological blind spots as defense mechanisms to prevent our being overwhelmed by reality as it actually is? Our nervous systems allow us to perceive only so much; true, but beyond this limitation, my guess is that some psychological element causes us to block out much information that we could otherwise perceive.

I can hear quick emotional objections. “No, if we could do all that, we’d know when we were going to die!” But suppose we saw beyond the point of death, discovering to our surprise that we were still conscious—not only of ourselves as we “were” but of other portions of ourselves of which we had been unaware? Suppose in fact that Seth is correct: we only inhabit the flesh, existing within it but independent of it?

Yet I really believe that the facts are clear to anyone broad-minded enough to look into the field of parapsychology, or bold enough to do his own experimentation into the nature of consciousness. The facts should be clear to any person who has ever experienced a valid precognitive dream, clairvoyant event, or telepathic communication.

The facts of my experience—and that of others—are these. We are, to some extent, free of our physical bodies. We can see and feel and learn while our consciousness is separated from the physical form. We can perceive portions of the future. We do have access to information that does not come through the physical senses. If it wants to, science can take a hundred years to accept these ideas. In the meantime they are still facts. Hallucination is not involved, unless I am hallucinating now as I write this page, sip my coffee, and feel honest indignation that some of us would limit our abilities to protect limited concepts. Why should we take it for granted that concepts are right, if they contradict our experience?

In a way I was just as bad: I questioned myself and my experiences at every corner, and still do. But at least I didn’t let outdated concepts dictate what portions of my own experience I could accept as real, and what portions I must reject. But if I had not been affected by such ideas, I could have accepted my initial psychic experiences more freely and examined them wholeheartedly. Instead, particularly in the beginning, I was as much appalled as delighted with each new development.

These experiences have taught me this: We are multidimensional personalities now—you and I and everyone else. I think that consciousness congregates just as atoms and molecules do; that there are clumps of consciousness just as there are clumps of matter; and that we are a part of these clumps, whether we know it or not. We know little about our own psychology and less about the nature of consciousness. To learn more we must be willing to examine our own consciousness, individually. In doing so, I’m convinced that we will discover a greater individuality, uniqueness, and sense of identity. In sticking so close to the confines of egotistical physically oriented awareness, we may be closing ourselves off from answers to our deepest questions, knowledge that can help us deal more intelligently with physical life.

As to who or what Seth is, his term “energy essence personality” seems as close to the answer as anyone can get. I don’t believe he is a part of my subconscious, as that term is used by psychologists, or a secondary personality. I do think that we have a supraconscious that is as far “above” the normal self as the subconscious is “below” it, though Seth maintains there are no real levels to the self—the terms just make things simpler. I ascribe ESP abilities to this supraconscious and think that it has access to information regarding the nature of reality not normally available to the egotistical portions of the personality. It may be that Seth is the psychological personification of that supraconscious extension of my normal self.

His effect upon others is immediate. Apparently he has considerable “presence.” He reacts to others, and relates much better than I do to people from various walks of life. As the excerpts show, though, he has made it plain that the characteristics by which we know him are only a portion of his personality and those he finds most helpful in getting our attention and delivering the material.

“I am, however, automatically a part of the message that I bring to you. At times I am ‘here’ more completely than in other sessions. These reasons often have to do with circumstances usually beyond normal control: electromagnetic conditions, psychological circumstances. These could be considered as atmospheric conditions through which I must travel.

Obviously I’ve avoided calling Seth a spirit and leaving it at that. I don’t like the phrase for one thing, and for another, I think that this is too easy an answer. In accepting one solution, we may be closing our minds to others that lie beneath. I am not saying that Seth is just a psychological structure allowing me to tune into revelational knowledge, nor denying that he has an independent existence. I do think that some kind of blending must take place in sessions between his personality and mine, and that this “psychological bridge”’ itself is a legitimate structure that must take place in any such communication. Seth is at his end, I am at mine. I agree with Seth here. I don’t think it is a relatively simple matter of a medium just blacking out and acting like a telephone connection. I do think that Seth is part of another entity, and that he is something quite different from, say, a friend who has “survived” death.

“Such a book would have nothing to do with Ruburt’s own writing, which would progress at its own rate. … The book would bear my name, but I would dedicate it to the both of you,” he said with a broad smile.

Naturally I do not claim that the material represents pure, undistorted knowledge. This question of distortion came up for perhaps the fiftieth time in the 463rd session. After I signed the contract for this book, our friend Peg Gallagher was doing a story about Seth for the local paper, and she attended a session to get material. After several joking remarks to Peg (“Someday I will interview you”), Seth began speaking about distortions.

“Any perception is action and it changes that upon which it acts, and in so doing, it is itself changed. The slightest perception alters every atom within your body. This, in turn, sends out its ripples, so that as you know, the most minute action is felt everywhere.”

One night before our regular Wednesday session Rob and I were pretty upset over the state of the world in general. We sat talking and Rob wondered aloud why we behaved as we did. “What real sense or purpose is behind it all?” he said. “Granted some part of us knows what we’re doing, still we seem hell-bent on destroying the planet, if not through war, then through pollution.”

As Seth Two says: “It is not that your being exists in a lesser reality. It is that you have not learned to recognize the extent of the reality in which you do exist.” I hope that this book and the Seth Material have given the reader some glimpse of his own multidimensional existence.