“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

These counterparts form psychic families. They are family representations on another level. First of all, such groups have a built-in focus — political, civic, religious, sexual, or whatever. (Pause.) Certain members of the group express the repressed tendencies of others. Yet each is supported through a common sense of belonging, so that the group sometimes seems to have its own overall identity, in which each member plays a part. Any reader can easily discover this by examining the groups to which he or she belongs.

To me, beside whatever relationship it might have with counterpart reality, the soul-mate belief embodies strongly distorted versions of the ideas contained in the two Seth passages quoted above.

6. Seth’s line about the dislike that can exist among counterparts is hilarious, nor am I being facetious in so commenting. To use the members of ESP class as a general example, Jane and I have often noted the variety of feelings, ranging from the most positive to the most negative, that her students exhibit toward one another. The interesting thing about Seth’s statement is that with counterpart theory in mind one can gain a fresh appreciation of how underlying emotions and motives flow among certain individuals, sometimes surfacing in feelings of dislike, for instance, to whatever degree. And, of course, my thinking here is in line with material Seth himself soon gives in this session.

“An idea came to me a few days ago, when I was thinking about my fascination with the time of Henry VIII (in 16th-century England). I wondered, ‘Whatever happened to Henry?’ Suddenly I had the thought that maybe in linear terms Henry is now ‘many’ people — that he has a number of offshoots or counterpart personalities alive at once. So, theoretically, you could get all the Henry people together now, have them alter their consciousnesses to a certain degree, and compile from them an amazing multilevel, multifaceted portrait of Henry VIII — assuming, of course, that one would be willing to accept such subjective experiences as valid. What a wonderful, weird view of ‘history’ — and probably a truer one than we’re used to….”