“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Today is Jane’s birthday. She is 45 years old. I didn’t ask her to have a session tonight, but she volunteered. While we waited for Seth to come through, she talked about the deaths of her parents.¹ Her father, Delmer, died on November 16, 1971, when he was 68; her mother, Marie, died on May 10, 1972, at the same age.

(When Jane was young Marie had in all seriousness often warned her “When I die, I’ll come back and haunt you.” During those years Marie was in her late 20’s and early 30’s, and already incapacitated by arthritis; and, to quote Seth from a session held in 1964, she had “… often spoken vehemently of Ruburt’s birth being a source of disease, and pain, that is of her arthritis … If Ruburt’s mother had it to do over, she would not have the child — and the child hidden within the adult still feels that the mother actually has the power, even now, to force the child back into the womb and refuse to deliver it …”

(Jane said tonight that she still feels a strong emotional charge in connection with the idea of the “dead” returning in those stereotyped, banal terms. Yet, although Seth has said very little to date about ghosts, hauntings, and possession [we link them together], it doesn’t seem that Jane’s early family experiences have led her to set up any blocks against such topics. “Seth just hasn’t gotten around to them yet,” she said. “When he does, they’ll make a great series of chapters — or maybe a whole book some day.”)

(“Good evening, Seth.”)

(10:35. Jane’s delivery had been average; and, she said now, the session would be a short one. It was. When Seth came through again in a few minutes he said, humorously: “Tell Ruburt I said ‘Happy Birthday’” — then gave a page of material for Jane on another subject. End at 10:48 P.M.

(Within that deleted information were a few lines I’d like to present here for the record. When Jane finished with certain challenges, Seth remarked, “… there will be a ‘birth’ of seemingly new concepts, simply because his [Jane’s] old mental barriers kept him from making certain important connections, and an increasing system of communication between waking and dreaming states.”

2. Seth talked very briefly about such blueprints in Chapter 20 of Personal Reality — see the 672nd session after the end of break at 10:28. He concluded his material by stating: “A system of checks and balances exists, however, so that in certain dreams you are made aware of these blueprints. They may appear throughout your lifetime as recurring dreams of a certain nature — dreams of illumination; and even if you do not remember them you will awaken with your purposes strengthened and suddenly clear.

3. Seth’s material here reminded me of what Jane had told me last week about her own objectified perception of information; see her quoted notes prefacing the 694th session for May 1.

5. See Note 3 for Session 679, concerning Seth’s male name for Jane (Ruburt), and his comments that “Sex, regardless of all your fleshy tales, is a psychic phenomenon …”

Every so often Jane hears from a female reader who wants to know why Seth often uses the male gender in his books, especially in passages like those in tonight’s 696th session. A little reflection will show that in spite of the “sexist” implications it would be quite difficult to present such material in other ways, so common is the use of “man,” “he,” “his,” and “him.” In the English language we often don’t have the right word, one meaning male and female equally, with which to represent the species. Many times “humanity” doesn’t fit. Nor do we like to substitute “it,” since it’s neuter and devoid of feeling as far as we’re concerned. We also don’t want to become involved with rewriting Seth’s material: We’re sure that when he produces passages cast in the male gender, his intentions are anything but prejudiced in favor of that sex.

“Seth is using the English language (my native one) to discuss issues that often involve concepts most difficult to describe in the language itself — or, indeed, in any language.

“Obviously, Seth’s purpose is to explain what he can within the framework of that language, rather than to change the language itself — as would be necessary, for example, to escape its often prejudiced nature. This prejudice appears most obviously in its sexual aspects: ‘Mankind’ for the species in general, and ‘he’ in referring to the individual member. Linguistically this leaves the female out in the cold — and in more ways than one — for the masculine intent is clear.

“Using that language, however, Seth’s intent is also clear: Individual identity comes before sexual affiliation. That affiliation is a mixture of ‘female’ and ‘male’ elements that are complementary, not opposing. Neither is superior. Male and female also represent psychic and biological faces and a sexual stance. Through all of Seth’s books runs one common thread: Our sexual prejudice is the result of certain aspects of consciousness that we as a species long ago began stressing over others.”