“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Long pause.) I am not denying the importance of true reason. Certainly I am not telling you to ignore the intellect. But you do often ignore the playfulness of the intellect, and force it to become something less than it is.

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.

And in his own way Seth confirmed one of Sue’s projections. From a deleted session that I prefer not to date here because of other, personal reasons: “I may have slipped up, but I do not think so: I do not believe I gave the information about you and Peter in book dictation (for ‘Unknown’ Reality), in order to keep the material simple enough for the reader — although you chose to include that (724th) session in the book anyhow. But you and Peter are and are not counterparts. You do share psychic memories, and hold in common the memories of other selves who did live in the time of your (fourth) Roman-soldier incident.

(I suppose that one can find all sorts of variations within counterpart situations, all sorts of reasons for such affiliations, so I can merely hint at a few here as they rise out of the class framework or orbit around it: