“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(This will be the first time Seth has appeared on television since we did some promotional work for The Seth Material after its publication in 1970. At that time Jane spoke for Seth on two occasions from cities in the East. Reactions were excellent; she still receives an occasional call or letter about one of those shows in particular. I might add that since Seth launched “Unknown” Reality in February of this year, Jane and I have fulfilled another television commitment, and that she was the subject of a lengthy radio interview. But the pressures of work, plus our own conservative attitudes about personal publicity, have led us to pass by other such opportunities.

Ultimately your use of instruments, and your preoccupation with them as tools to study the greater nature of reality, will teach you one important lesson: The instruments are useful only in measuring the level of reality in which they themselves exist.¹ Period.

So-called objective science gives you a picture, a model, that has served well enough in its own fashion, enabling you to travel to the moon, for example, and to advance in a technology that for a time you set your hearts upon. In the framework of objective science as it now exists, however, even the technology will come up against a stone wall. Even as a means, objective science is only helpful for a while, because it will constantly run up against deeper inner realities that are necessarily shunted aside and ignored simply because of its method and attitude.² No objective science or splendid technology alone will keep even one man or woman alive, for example, if that individual has decided to leave the flesh, or finds no joy in daily life.

(Pause.) A loving technology, again, would always add to the qualitative and spiritual deepening of experience. The inner order of existence and true science go together. The true scientist is not afraid of identifying with the reality he chooses to study. He knows that only then can he dare to begin to understand its nature. There are many unofficial scientists, true ones in that regard, unknown in this age. Many are quite ordinary people in exterior terms, with other professions. Yet it is no accident that greater discoveries are often made by “amateurs” — those who are relatively free from official dogmas, released from the pressure to get ahead in a given field — those whose creativity flows freely and naturally in those areas of their natural interest.

I am not making a prediction here. I am simply pointing out one probability that exists. There have indeed been civilizations upon your planet³ that understood as well as you, and without your kind of technology, the workings of the planets, the positioning of stars — people who even foresaw “later” global changes. They used a mental physics. There were men before you who journeyed to the moon, and who brought back data quite as “scientific” and pertinent. There were those who understood the “origin” of your solar system far better than you. Some of these civilizations did not need spaceships.⁴ Instead, highly trained men combining the abilities of dream-art scientists and mental physicists cooperated in journeys not only through time but through space. There are ancient maps drawn from a 200-mile-or-more vantage point — these meticulously completed on return from such journeys.

Give us a moment … The particular thrust and direction of your own science have been directly opposed to the development of such inner sciences, however, so that to some extent each step in the one direction has thus far taken you further from the other. Yet all sciences are based on the desire for knowledge, and so there are intersections that occur even in the most diverse of paths; and you are at such an intersection.

(Pause.) The blueprints for reality lie even beneath the electrons’ activity. As long as you think in terms of [subatomic] particles, you are basically off the track — or even when you think in terms of waves. The idea of interrelated fields comes closer, of course, yet even here you are simply changing one kind of term for one like it, only slightly different. In all of these cases you are ignoring the reality of consciousness, and its gestalt formations and manifestations. Until you perceive the innate consciousness behind any “visible” or “invisible” manifestations, then, you put a definite barrier to your own knowledge.

Ruburt’s vocabulary is not an official scientific one. Nor for our purposes should it be — for that vocabulary is limiting.

(10:34. The ringing persisted for almost two minutes I found the situation very irritating — especially since I’d forgotten to turn off the telephone’s bell before the session. If there was one time when we didn’t need an interruption, I thought, it was while Jane was dealing with the present kind of material. Yet she continued to speak for Seth:)

2. Seth’s material about technology and science leading to inner realities reminds me of two related examples that I’ve become aware of recently through my own reading. The first one involves a more intimate inner reality than the second, yet both pose interesting questions. Each reader can probably give similar illustrations. (However, as I wrote in Appendix 1, “I’m not interested in knocking our technology, but in pointing out coexisting inner factors that I’m sure are just as important.”)

My first example concerns the development of biofeedback machines in the 1960’s. With one of these devices the individual was to learn to control, when necessary, his or her own blood pressure, or any of certain other involuntary body functions. Doubtlessly such self monitoring is an example of the “loving technology” that Seth mentioned in his final delivery for the last Session; yet we now understand that the early claims for biofeedback were considerably exaggerated. Within a more reasonable context the technique will take its place in our medical systems, but in each case what we learn will surely point up the need to understand our individual inner realities; i.e., what caused the high blood pressure, or whatever, in the first place?

And from the 45th session, 20 days later: “… your present theory of the expanding universe is in error. Space travel will be dumped when your scientists discover that space as you know it is a distortion, and that journeying from one so-called galaxy to another is done through divesting the physical body of camouflage [matter]. The vehicle of so-called space travel is mental and psychic mobility, in terms of psychic transformation of energy …”

6. Seth, in the 681st session: “Atoms can move in more directions than one at once.” In Note 7 for that session I wrote that as an artist my intuitional reaction to that statement was to associate the multidirectional ability of the atom with Seth’s notions of simultaneous time and probabilities. Since electrons are the particles or processes moving about the nucleus of the atom, I now make the same association for them. Thus, according to Seth, we have a most complicated and profound dance of units or essences — behavior not really amenable to translation in words.