“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(“Well,” I said to Jane after class, as we discussed the Chinese-American situation cited by Seth, “I don’t know about counterpart relationships in other kinds of realities, but it’s certainly obvious that at least some physical counterparts can hate each other …” So the larger self, I thought, would be quite capable of seeking experience through its parts in every way imaginable. Although it might be difficult for us to understand, let alone accept, the whole self or entity must regard all of its counterparts as sublime facets of itself — no matter whether they loved, suffered,⁵ hated, or killed each other or “outsiders.” Within its great reaches it would transform its counterparts’ actions in ways that were, quite possibly, beyond our emotional and intellectual grasp. At the same time, the self would learn and be changed through the challenges and struggles of its human portions.

(Seth’s material on counterparts did make us wonder about Jane’s and his earlier uses of the word and its concepts. Checking backward through past sessions and Jane’s poetry, I soon learned that her intuitive grasp of the term had always been truer than mine, for I’d carried the idea that “counterpart” implied a status of opposites rather than the complementary one it really does. Seth also used the term in its correct sense.⁷