“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Joseph recently had an experience that disturbed him, simply because it was difficult to interpret even in the light of his understanding about the nature of the self. You cannot explore the nature of reality, hoping to discover its unknown aspects, if you insist that those aspects correspond with the known ones. So Joseph allowed himself some freedom — and then was almost scandalized with the results.

(Long pause at 11:21. Then Jane, speaking for Seth, delivered the following material in a most emphatic manner. It was obvious that she was in a deep trance.)

The material I picked up about my father’s psychic intents was at first very bewildering. Hinted at was such a diffusion of consciousness that at the time individuality seemed to have little meaning. For I glimpsed Robert Butts, Sr. as he decided to disperse “himself” into a series of other personalities in both the past and the near future, so that I wondered how — in that mélange of identities — my father could possibly know himself. Seth’s explanations in ESP class last night and in this evening’s session helped clear my mind considerably, though: According to him, consciousness has no difficulty in making such alliances while maintaining continuity of identity, though its vast abilities are certainly almost impossible for us to grasp.

At 11:35 tonight Seth briefly referred to my second recent psychic experience, and to Jane’s. Both involved more “conventional” ideas, and both involved perception of my deceased mother in her own nonphysical state. (Jane’s happened on Monday afternoon, December 9, while mine took place this afternoon.) Jane’s was especially clear, featuring a communication from Stella Butts — who was seemingly quite “herself.” It isn’t necessary to study those two events in detail here, however.

[...] His material was hilarious, provocative, and profound — all at once. [...]

[...] (Here, Seth’s voice was powerful and emphatic indeed. [...]

[...] For many people will accept the same philosophy when expressed as it was in the 725th session, and yet be quite upset when those ideas are discussed in the vernacular, in language that certainly cannot be considered ambiguous in any fashion.)