“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

The giant image of myself, never clearly glimpsed by Ruburt, represents my own greater reality. In a particular fashion, that identity cannot be fully expressed within the confines of any one form, any more than yours can. Period. Ruburt saw many miniature versions of me. In his inner vision these appeared as identical, simply so that he would identify them as portions of myself. They are actually quite different, one from the others.

Give us a moment … The self, as I have said [many times] before, is not limited. It can therefore split off from itself without being less. This Seth might be “born” two or three times in one century — or more — and then in your terms not appear for five or ten centuries. Each Seth would be completely independent, however, and each appearance would signify the creation of a new personality — not simply a new version of an old one.

Each would be inherently aware of its own potentials and “background,” but each would tune in to a particular point of that so-called background.

What I am saying here applies to the greater identity of each reader. Give us a moment … Because you are usually so worried about preserving what you think of as your identity, we use terms like reincarnational selves or counterparts. If you truly understood the nature of your individuality, however, you would clearly see that there is no contradiction if I say that you are uniquely yourself, that your individuality has an indestructible validity that is never assailed, and when I also say that you are at the same time connected with other identities, each as sacredly inviolate as your own.

If you would identify with your own psychological reality, following the inward structure of thoughts and feelings, you would discover an inward psychological infinity. These “infinities” would reach of course into both an infinite past and future. Yet true infinity reaches far beyond past or future, and into all probabilities — not simply straightforward into time, or backward.

(Jane and I do not ascribe the elements making up our house adventures to that old catchall, “coincidence,” of course; at the same time we have no plans to statistically attempt anything with them either. So many variables are present that a separate analysis would be required for each individual involved — with “boundaries,” say, set as to the number of items to be considered in each case. Then what about temporal boundaries? Truly, for myself the whole house thing had its origins in my early childhood, over half a century ago. But Jane, being younger, would designate quite different limitations in time….

(A query: With the individual analyses done, would it be possible to incorporate them all into one masterwork? Such a project would be a formidable one, I think, and would take at least a book in itself.

(Pause at 11:20.) Experiencing that kind of series could lead to entirely different kinds of perception, in which infinities (pause) existed (pause) within a scale of its own. (In parentheses: The series would have its own kind of infinities.)

A tree could be wired with lights, with each one having its own particular series [of waves]. The people who put up the tree might experience one Christmas Eve, while other consciousnesses, tuned in to the different series, could experience endless generations¹³ — and their perceptions would be quite as legitimate as those of the light-watchers who had erected the tree.

At least as she understands these concepts, Jane — and Seth — “took off” from them in individual, creative ways. For Chapter 19 of Politics (which is to be published in 1976) Jane transcribed from her library, in part: “If you imagine the official numbers 1 to 10 in a row, then there would be an infinite number of unofficial 1’s hidden in the 1 you saw, and an infinite number of spaces between the official 1 and 2. The position of the 1 on the paper would represent our sense-data world, while the invisible 1’s behind the official 1 would represent the official 1’s hidden values and infinite probabilities.”

In Note 1 for Session 739 I wrote that when Jane and I decided to buy the hill house (on February 21, 1975) we learned that the place next to it on the west would soon be for sale. I also commented that it would “be interesting to see what — if any — house connections develop.”

The odds against such a “coincidence” developing would be astronomical — except that the Millers had lived in a neighborhood close to the hill house several years ago (when the acquaintanceship with Louise Akins had been made), had moved out of state, then returned to buy the house next door to us. The house connection is still unique, however, considering that in the hill house Jane and I found ourselves bracketed east and west by people who knew one of her early students — who had in turn mentioned Jane to them. Interesting, that Frank Corio had been instrumental in bringing the Millers back to their favorite neighborhood, when in a city the size of Elmira there are at any time a number of homes for sale in “desirable” neighborhoods, including “ours.”