“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Originally, however, I felt a surge of uneasiness as soon as Seth mentioned that my friend, artist Peter Smith, is a counterpart of mine. When I checked the 724th session, I affirmed the reason for that reaction: Seth had stated therein that Peter and I were not counterparts, although “closely enough allied so that in certain terms you ‘share’ some of the same psychic memories….” Why the contradiction, I wondered, even if Seth had qualified it? Neither Jane nor I believed I’d mistakenly recorded Seth in either the 724th or the 732nd session; we planned to ask him soon for clarification.

(10:45. With one exception — that of Sue Watkins — all the names given by Seth, involving counterpart relationships, have been changed. Most of the people are members of Jane’s class; some have met certain of their counterparts, but not others; Jane, Sue, and I are the only ones who know everyone Seth named. During break Jane came through with additional psychic affiliations among her students, but it isn’t necessary to discuss them here. She couldn’t say whether Seth would indicate any more counterparts after break.

(I told her I’d been rather surprised when Seth had so baldly stated that there were only nine families of [human] consciousness upon our planet. The number seemed too small, too arbitrary. I also remarked upon my understanding that usually neither she nor Seth liked to categorize new information so definitely. Jane, while agreeing, couldn’t elaborate upon this very much, beyond saying that she felt each family could have subdivisions, and/or combine with others, so that mathematically at least there existed the possibility of “a lot” of them. I liked that idea much better. Strangely, neither of us had ever asked Seth to name any of the other families of consciousness, following Jane’s Sumari breakthrough some three years ago — but at the end of this session see the material about the family of consciousness Sue Watkins had tuned in to back then.

[...] Seth’s naming a good number of class members as counterparts came as no great surprise to Jane and me — but it did make us more than a little suspicious at first. We’ve been thinking about counterpart ideas since Seth introduced the concept two months ago; see the opening notes for the 721st session. Then, in the 726th session, Seth named Jane and me as counterparts of each other. Although we keep the power of suggestion in mind, on one level we found Seth’s associations quite pleasant for the most part, and, once given, somewhat as we might have expected them to be. Yet I felt no strong surge of emotion, for instance, to learn that Norma Pryor [whom I’ve met but a few times], Peter Smith, and Jack Pierce are counterparts of mine — nor did they when I read Seth’s material to them during ESP class six nights later. Jane’s feelings were pretty similar to mine, when Seth named three students as her counterparts: Sue Watkins, Zelda, and “the young man from Maryland….”

“We’re so used to thinking that our encounters with others are caused by chance — except for those we purposely bring about through choice, such as marriage partners — that Seth’s comments about my students seem a bit outrageous at first: So many counterparts in one room?

[...] And, according to Seth, the same would apply to any group. [...]