“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

The dream has several aspects. First the defined steps going upward represented fairly (underlined) ordinary steps that had to be taken, that others had taken before you. They were clearly defined as such. Even then Ruburt wondered about them. They became less defined as you went higher.

Finally you were led to travel to the top where there were no defined steps, but a smooth, steady ascent with no steps as such to follow. You got there first and helped Ruburt. This means that in your inner self you have a clear idea of the goals which Ruburt, for many reasons, some quite legitimate, hides from his practical self.

The ideal may be specific, then, or ill-defined, and man’s idea of “the good” varies considerably. The better you can define your idea of the ideal, the better off you are, for it—the definition—at least clears your own mind, and suggests lines of action too. [...]

[...] Not unless you define, you specify. [...]

Because neither of you really (underlined) defined and carried through on your definitions some black or white thinking resulted. [...]

For years I’ve been confused, trying to define Seth in the usual true-and-false world of facts. [...]

While I was trying to define Seth that way and questioning whether or not he was a spirit guide, I was closed off to some extent from his greater reality, which exists in terms of vast imaginative and creative power that is bigger than the world of facts and can’t be contained in it. [...]

[...] Trying to define revelatory knowledge, or a Seth, in terms of our limited ideas about human personality is like trying to translate, say, a rose to the number 3, or trying to explain one in terms of the other.

The word dyniah connotes an apparent boundary that serves to define that which lies within by acting upon it. dyniah, the word itself without the “d” ending, you see, while never appearing within the montella, defines its activity, reinforces its identity, and is as much a part of it as the hidden cordella that gives it form. [...]

As you know, there is constant interaction going on within all portions of the montella, these possible because of the defining boundary (in quotes) “barrier.”

[...] All of the words need not be defined, though key ones will be. [...]

The term “psychic” is ill-defined, so he must define for himself the field of his activity, specify clearly for both of your sakes where his own strengths lie, and his intents, and what is to be expected of him and what is not. [...]

[...] Most jobs, or even vocations, carry along with them implied guidelines, specifications, and definite requirements that serve to define the work involved. [...]

[...] It is important that Ruburt define what is expected of the practical self, and what falls outside of its realm. [...]

[...] You could invent a completely different way of regarding human health by numbering and defining each of those stages. Instead, of course, your society has chosen to recognize and define all of those stages that are detrimental to health — stages that are recognizable because of health’s absence to one degree or another.

[...] When you attempt to understand your psyche, and define it in terms of time, then it seems that the idea of reincarnation makes sense. [...] And so you try to define the psyche in terms of time, and in so doing you limit your understanding and even your experience of it.

I am not saying that words cannot be used to describe the psyche, but they cannot define it. [...]

(Pause.) Again, rather than trying to define the psyche, I will try to incite your imagination so that you can leap beyond what you have been told you are, to some kind of direct experience. [...]

(Pause, one of many.) Light can be defined as a wave or as a particle,² and the same is true in many other instances. Consciousness, for example, can be defined as a wave or as a particle, for it can operate as either, and appear as either, even though its true definition would have to include the creative capacity to shape itself into such forms.

([Joel:] “A substitute instead of nondescript—what I was trying to say was rigidly defined. I can’t accept that we are rigidly defined and structured as personalities.”)

[...] That does not mean that what you see of my personality defines me, or that what you think of as your own personality defines you. [...]

[...] Those beliefs about yourself form your own self-image, and define your concepts of what is possible or not possible for you. [...]

[...] So, you see, the personality cannot be defined as being thus-and-so.

The “you” that you presently conceive yourself to be represents the emergence into physical experience of but one probable state of your being, who then directs corporeal life and “frames” and defines all sense data. [...]

[...] Do laws define what is unacceptable, or do they hint of some perhaps undifferentiated, barely sensed, more positive issues? [...]

[...] Who defines what is right and wrong, legal and illegal?

[...] Initially, language was meant to express and release, not to define and limit. [...]

[...] The reasoning mind defines, makes judgments, deals with the physical objects of the world, and also with the cultural interpretations current in its time.

The people count upon the government to realistically define the conditions of the world, to have proper intelligence so that the activities in foreign lands are known, to keep up proper communication with other governments, and so forth. [...]

Not to work at an ordinary job, or at a clearly defined occupation, has always had a tint of European decadence to Americans—and that is to some extent the result of the early Protestants’ attitude toward the wealthy, robed gentlemen of the late medieval, Roman Catholic Church. [...]

[...] She expected a clearly defined role. [...]

[...] Unless negative beliefs stand in your way, then creative ideas that you contribute to the work will automatically take care of your needs, and it is truly idiotic to want to substitute that good fortune for such parochial concepts like the male as breadwinner, or the male performing in a given definable fashion. [...]

[...] More ill-defined perhaps.” [...] Something ill-defined, not formalized, etc., applies here.

[...] More ill-defined, perhaps.

[...] Your sexual qualities are a part of your nature, but they do not define it.

[...] This would be sad enough if you did not often use such distorted data to further define the nature of male and female behavior.

The plants awakened before the animals—and there are reasons for these varying degrees of “wakefulness” that have nothing to do basically with the differentiations of specieshood as defined by science from the outside, but have to do with the inner affiliations of consciousness, and with species or families of consciousness. [...]

2. Seth should have said that light can be defined as being made up of waves or particles, but he didn’t put it quite that way, and I let stand what he did say. [...]

[...] Defined in your terms, a fragment is a consciousness not as developed as your own. [...]

[...] (Pause.) What you perceive of time is a portion of other events intruding into your own system, often interpreted as movement in space, or as something that separates events — if not in space, then in a way impossible to define without using the concept of time.

(Pause.) People’s actions, again, are primarily determined by their systems of belief, for those systems set up the patterns of behavior and define the potentials and limitations that are accepted usually as literal fact. [...]