“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

We identify with our bodies, as indeed the psychologists tell us that we must. But this identification is based upon the idea that without a body there is no self. It also supposes that all knowledge comes to us through the physical senses. Obviously, according to this idea, we couldn’t perceive anything if we were out of our bodies. In fact, there would be no self to get out to begin with, since our consciousness would be the result of our body mechanisms. This is the orthodox view of many scientists and psychologists.

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.

Above all, I am sure that Seth is my channel to revelational knowledge, and by this I mean knowledge that is revealed to the intuitive portions of the self rather than discovered by the reasoning faculties. Such revelational information is available to each of us, I believe, to some degree. From it springs the aspirations and achievements of our race. I think that revelational knowledge comes first in the form of intuitions, dreams, hunches, or experiences such as mine, and that the intellect then uses the information provided. Both are important.

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.

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.