“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Once we’d decided to publish in two volumes, Jane, Tam, and I agreed that we didn’t want to move all of the supplementary data to the back of each book, as is often done in such cases. Not only would the reader be constantly involved in looking up specific items, but we felt that the shorter notes especially would be too far removed from their intimate positions within the sessions; we wanted these to enhance individual sessions directly without getting in the way, so I worked out a compromise which offers some sort of orderly presentation without being too rigid.

During our book sessions, which are almost always private — held without witnesses, that is — Seth speaks at a moderate enough pace so that I can take down his dictation verbatim in my own kind of shorthand. Although it’s often hard work, I find this approach more intimate and meaningful than passively using a tape recorder; I also have time to insert my own comments as we go along. Then, later, I type the sessions. I can do this much more quickly and comfortably from my notebook than I can from a tape. As I wrote in Personal Reality, I believe that Jane’s ability to deliver Seth’s material with so few changes being made in it “says important things about these sessions.” (See my notes at the end of the 610th session, in Chapter 1 of that book.) And concerning my objective observations of Seth himself, I’ll let my notes in the sessions build up whatever composite picture I’m able to construct.

Although there are similarities, then, in our view there are vital differences, too, between Seth’s philosophy and that of many other organized systems. Jane and I prefer to think about the unities we find in our world as including religions, not being defined by them, and we think Seth stresses this. We go along in our own stubborn ways, knowing that our outlooks are rooted in the Western traditions of the world, but also knowing that there exist all about us these numerous other philosophies or systems, some of them many centuries old, that the human race has created to help it explain reality. Yet we feel no compulsion to intimately know the details of, say, Sufism or Brahmanism. (A simile I often think of here compares Eastern and Western life and thought with the right and left hemispheres of the brain; they’re separate, yet united; each half performs functions that complement and to some extent overlap those of the other, and together they operate as a whole.) But we dislike the idea of nirvana in Buddhism and Hinduism, which calls for the extinction or blowing out of individual consciousness, and its absorption into a supreme spirit, usually after a series of lives. And we object to the notion that “nature,” in those terms of linear time, has so arranged things that the individual has to pay a karmic debt in one life as the result of actions in a previous one. Why should nature punish anyone if it doesn’t punish anything? The realities of nirvana and karma are not ones that Jane and I want to create.