“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 are aware of past, present, and future—a series of moments strung out, it seems, one before the other. What if this series is only part of a larger present, a more spacious “moment” of which we are unaware?

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.

If so, how independent would he be? The question can’t be answered easily. Certainly he wouldn’t be present within my personality structure as I know it. I don’t believe, for example, that his presence would be disclosed by any psychological testing of my own personality. The inherent relationship would snap into focus during a session, however, when the supraconscious identity would take over.

“As I have told you, projection is involved to some extent, both on my part and Ruburt’s. Your [Rob’s] own presence is also important, whether or not you are present at any given session. … Now when you watch, say, educational television, you see the teacher, and he speaks. He may or may not actually be speaking at that time, for you may be watching a film. But the teacher exists whether or not he is speaking at that time, and his message is legitimate. So now see Ruburt as my television screen. … It makes no difference whether or not I am myself speaking within Ruburt now … or whether I did this last night in his sleep, and tonight is a film or playback.

“Again: the medium is the message in the Spacious Present,” Seth said, smiling, “and whenever the time for the program arrives, I am here in your present, regardless of where I am in what you would term my present. … I may prepare my film in advance when Ruburt is not consciously aware of it. This does not imply that such a session is less legitimate.”

“Such a book would also include my methods of entry into your system and the sort of psychological bridge personality that results. Again: what you have in sessions is not my complete identity. There must be some sort of psychological structure present for me to use during my communications. At times, however, my identity comes through clearly enough so that, comparatively speaking, I can exist independently, as myself, without Ruburt’s assistance.