“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Part of my surprise stemmed from what I’d taken to be my knowledge of Jane’s relationship with her father. Her parents had divorced when she was two years old, and since her mother did not remarry Jane grew up without a father.² Jane and “Del” met again, briefly, when she became 21 years old in 1950. After Jane and I married a few years later we occasionally visited her father in various parts of the country — but still, we hadn’t seen him for several years before his death. Yet now it seemed that even beneath that scattered performance Jane’s psyche had felt stronger ties of some kind — at least with Del, if not with her mother — than either of us had suspected; that at least some part of her had sensed a sort of biological or creature loss upon the death of a blood relative. I’d never heard her express such attachments or feelings. Even now she could only link the release of her very creative Sumari attributes, the singing poetry, and prose [as embodied in her novel, Oversoul Seven, for instance], with Seth’s reference to psychic families as well as physical ones.

Now (Seth told us last night) you can expand the functions of any particular family group, or you can cut it down, by deciding how precise you want to be. If one family deals with the nature of healing, then you can slice it down to the healing of a toe … an ear … an eye.

Now these families fall generally into certain groups. In greater terms you can “cut the pie” however you want to, but you will still share an emotional and psychic feeling of belonging with the family of which you are a part. And (with broad amusement) most of you here are Sumari, and it demands great discipline for Sumari to take down lists — even of psychic families!

(“I’m at the point now where I know what Seth’s going to talk about,” “Jane said a few minutes before the session began. [...]

(10:01 P.M. Her trance hadn’t been particularly deep, Jane said, yet now she proceeded to underestimate by almost half the 51 minutes she’d been “under.” [...]

[...] “Of course,” we said now, using that very valuable attribute called hindsight. [...]

(Now see Note 4 for material concerning the two questions I’d noted at 10:01.)