“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.

Physically we can only handle so much data at once, since we are dependent in that respect upon our neurological structure. Each sensation we have received since our birth is still intact in the subconscious. We push such details “back” so that we can handle the present. We focus our attention upon a certain group of events—the “present” ones—and then drop them into the subconscious where they seem to fall away and become distant. If we could keep our attention on these past events and still concentrate on the present ones simultaneously, then our sense of present time would be immeasurably enlarged.

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.

If we could remove these blind spots and enlarge the focus of our attention, I think that we would become aware of these other events, and that telepathy, precognition, and clairvoyance would be normal, practical methods of obtaining information. In other words, I think that ESP abilities are natural ones that we have denied because they seem to contradict our ideas of reality.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

“In ways, Ruburt is turned into a vitalized telegram. When you send a communication or telegram, you merely send words. I send portions of myself. My entire essence need not always be involved. I need not be entirely focused within your dimension, in other words, but I am sufficiently focused to meet our appointments. The psychological bridge of which I have spoken serves us well, however, and this exists on Ruburt’s part as well as my own.

“A certain portion of my reality is, therefore, available to you during appointed hours, and the bridgework is always available. Using it Ruburt can call upon me at other occasions. Using it, I may call upon you. This does not necessarily mean that such a call will always be met by an affirmative answer on either of our parts, or that contact will be made.

Seth went on to say that I had given my permission for such an arrangement, and that much of our work went on while I was sleeping or otherwise engaged. “This does not mean that I use Ruburt as a puppet, and stuff his mouth with tapes as a recorder, that you are always listening to replays, or that emotionally I am not always with you in sessions. It means that in such multidimensional communications, more is involved than you suppose.

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.

I don’t find these ideas contradictory. Seth could still be a part of an ancient entity, and Seth Two another portion more evolved in our terms. If physical life evolves, why not consciousness itself? I don’t find it difficult to accept the possibility that we might be independent fragments of such entities or clumps of consciousness. And granting this, some kind of communication between us would be possible. We would be all formed from the same “mental stuff,” whatever that stuff is. To us, however, such experiences would seem supranormal.

Seth Two said that certain portions of my personality acted as transparent windows into these other realities and consciousnesses. If so, many such “windows” must exist. Seth Two may have evolved almost beyond our understanding. The “distance” alone would make communication difficult, and a series of translators may be necessary—Seth may be one of them.

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.

He went on to say that vocal communication is not the rule. It is not used by more advanced entities nor by less developed ones than ourselves. In order to make sense to our three-dimensional selves, information must be “squeezed” through—and this in itself causes some distortion.

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.”

That was November 6, 1968, and starting that night we had a series of sessions dealing with the questions that were foremost in our minds. On that particular evening, our 446th session, the other personality, Seth Two, came through in that distant clear voice.