SESSION 696

(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 …”

(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.

NOTES: SESSION 696

1. For material on Jane’s family background, see the 679th session, including notes 4 and 8, as well as Appendix 1 for the same session.

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.

6. Among others, in Section I see the 684th session after 11:11, and the 686th session from 9:55 to 11:26.