“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

All probabilities are probed and experienced, and all possible universes created from these units. Therefore, there are realities in which the endless probabilities of one given event are probed, and all experience grouped about that venture.

All psychological structures then are composed of such organizations, however long-or short-lived in your terms. They are innately endowed with the desire or propensity for growth and creative organization. They are not found alone, then, in isolation. Since these units of consciousness exist at once, they are aware of all the organized self-structures of which they are a part. To this extent, all probable realities are connected in that basic manner. These units grow out of themselves. Since I have told you that in your terms your past, present, and future exist at once, these units are constantly emerging out of your now-point from both the future and the past.

(Long pause, one of many.) I do not want to ruin your idea of stability, and I do not want to confuse you. The fact remains that in speaking of probabilities thus far, I have simplified the issues considerably. (To me:) I said, for example, that you died as a child in one probability, and again in the (military) service, and I gave you a small sample of your parents’ probable history. (See the last two sessions.) In doing so I used ideas and terms quite easily grasped. The larger picture is somewhat more difficult — by far — to express.

All matter is based upon the units mentioned, with their unpredictability and their propensity for exploring all probabilities. Even your atomic structure, then, is poised between probabilities. If this is true, then obviously “you” are aware of only one small probable portion of yourself — and this portion you protect as your identity (underlined). If you think of it as simply a focus taken by “your” greater identity, then you will be able to follow what I am saying without feeling puny by contrast, or lost.⁶ The focus that you have is indeed inviolate.

I have often said that even in your lifetimes, all probable variations of any one event occur, but I never went much further. With your focus, it seems that you have a line of identity from birth to death. Looking back at any point, you are sure that the “self” of ten years ago is the self of today, though perhaps changed in certain respects.

There is, of course, no single-line kind of development at all. In the first place, as you know, your life is at once, though you experience, practically, a life-to-death sequence — Ruburt’s living area in Adventures.⁷ Every probable event that could happen to you, happens. I gave you one or two small examples of your mother’s probable existences. Think in physical terms of the generations going out from one seed into the ages.

Now: Your self-reality in any given moment is like that seed, following probable generations that appear in other dimensions as well as this one. In each now-moment, you draw from the vast bank of unpredictable actions certain ones that are “significant” to you; and your private idea of significance will result in what then seems to be predictable action.

These basic units move toward organizations then of a selective nature. Having an unpredictable field to draw from, they select activity according to those significances. Period. Various kinds of significances are the result of the units’ individual natures. The body that you have is a probable body. It is the result of one line of “development” that could be taken by your particular earth personality in flesh. All of the other possible lines of development also occur, however. They occur at once, but each one simultaneously affects every other. There is actually far greater interaction here than you realize, because you are not used to looking for it. The harder you work to maintain the official accepted idea of the self in conventional terms, the more of course you block out any kind of unpredictability.

Because of the great organizing nature of these basic units, there are also psychological structures that are quite capable of holding their own identities while being aware of any given number of probable selves. Life after death has great meaning in your reality, because death is a part of it. Your greater reality obviously transcends both your births and your deaths. The idea of one universe alone is basically nonsensical. Your reality must be seen in its relationship to others.⁸ Otherwise you are always caught in questions like “How did the universe begin?” or “When will it end?” All systems are constantly being created.

Only in a context of probabilities can immortality make any sense. Heredity springs from the great inherent unpredictability that is then broken down to specifications inside the chromosomes,⁹ no two of which are alike. What you think of as daily life is then a focus upon certain probable events above others, a choosing of significances, a selection of pattern. Other portions of the self follow different selections.

(Jane wondered how tonight’s material applied to my mother, [who had died three months ago]: “… to Mom Butts herself — not just the theory of it … Is she in another probability now?”

Now: Because your greater identity is aware of its probable existences, you are in matter and out of it at the same time — in time and out of it.

You have a greater identity outside of your context, yet a part of it is inside your context, as you. Your youness is your significance, a focus of awareness, conscious of itself, that seeks out and views experience with its own unique propensities. The existence of probable realities and probable selves in no way denies the validity of your own experience or individuality. That rides secure, choosing from unpredictable fields of actuality those that suit its own particular nature.

Now some of you might choose some of the same events, and there probabilities will merge. Such points of intersection are highly charged and creative. These intersections can happen in individual and mass terms. One historical event may be simultaneously accepted in several probable realities, for example, while others may occur in one and not in an alternate history.

(Long pause at 11:29.) While words are difficult to use here, again, what I am saying applies, in different ways perhaps, to the behavior of worlds, atoms, and psychological structures. Give us a moment … In the life that you know, as given in Personal Reality, your beliefs act to specify the particular probable events that will become “real.”¹⁰ Because you are a probable self, an understanding of your own nature will show you some of the abilities, not used here, but present, that you can indeed choose to actualize. You can draw then from your own bank of probable abilities, for there will be traces of them in you. They are being developed in another reality; therefore in this one they can be utilized far easier than you might suppose. When you exercise your right arm, your left arm benefits. When you develop abilities in one system, to some extent they are easier to develop in another. (To me:) In deciding to do some writing (for the Seth books, as an example), you are also drawing upon abilities that you have worked on in another system, and through your intent you are to a certain extent blending probabilities.¹¹

(I’d say that Seth’s information after 11:29 implies at least a partial answer to the questions Jane asked at break. And tonight, just as she had following last Monday’s session, Jane realized that she was actively delivering material on probabilities both in the sleep state and while partially awake.)

I find Seth’s discussions about probabilities most intriguing, and sense no physical or emotional threat. Jane feels the same way. “My concern, when I’m aware of it, is for the readers,” she told me after the session. “I don’t want any of them to feel swept away.”

11. Seth’s description of how I’m blending two probable selves reminded me of his material on the way Jane is doing the same thing. See the 680th session at 11:02. It can hardly be coincidental that Jane and I are using our individual writing abilities as the cohesive — the “glue” — to unite our respective sets of probable selves.