“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Childbirth might fulfill a woman and destroy a writer. Economically it might also destroy the artist who was the woman’s husband. To have a child might help fulfill the man she was married to, but this could destroy the artist she was married to. Conflicts then arose.

In many cases your scientists seem to have the strange idea that you can understand a reality by destroying it; that you can perceive the life mechanism of an animal by killing it; or that you can examine a phenomenon best by separating yourself from it. So, often, you attempt to examine the nature of the brain in man by destroying the brains of animals, by separating portions of the animal brain from its components, isolating them, and tampering with the overall integrity of both the animal in question and of your own spiritual processes. [...]

(Very emphatically:) It is absurd to believe that you can learn something about consciousness by destroying it. It is absurd to believe that you can learn one iota about the inner reality of life when your search leads you to destroy it. [...]

If you did not feel any need to destroy reality (in your terms) in order to understand it, then you would not need to dissect animals, hoping to discover the reasons for human diseases. [...]

[...] And if you destroy your planet, you will have others to work with, and those that were destroyed are not destroyed. [...]

[...] While you believe that to murder a man is to destroy his consciousness forever, then you cannot murder, and in your terms it is an evil. [...]

It seems to you that you have, perhaps, but one chance as a species to solve your problems, or be destroyed by your own aggression, by your own lack of understanding and spirituality. [...] Groups of people in various cycles of reincarnational activity have met crisis after crisis, have come to your point of physical development and either gone beyond it, or destroyed their particular civilization.

[...] They did not allow technology to destroy them, however. [...]

Large groups, however, simply left their cities, destroyed the force fields that had enclosed them, and joined the many groups of relatively uncivilized peoples, mating with them and bearing children. [...]

[...] So even when you think you destroy, you destroy nothing. [...] And when you imagine that you can destroy a reality, you can only destroy a reality as you know it, the reality itself will continue to exist. [...]

[...] And if a world escapes you and you cannot follow it and you think it has been destroyed, then the same thing applies to the world as to the thought. [...]

[...] You will not be destroying the planet, you see. You will not be destroying the birds or the flowers, or the grain or the animals. You will not be worthy of them, and they will be destroying you.

[...] He thinks he is being just, therefore, in his hatred, but the hatred itself forms a very strong claim that will follow him throughout his lives, until he learns that only the hatred itself is the destroyer.

[...] You will not destroy consciousness. [...]

[...] Therefore, I entreat you not to behave as if man will destroy himself in some future — not to behave as if man is an imbecile, doomed to extinction, a dimwitted, half-crazy animal with a brain gone amuck.

None of the prophesied destruction man so fears is a reality in your time; nor, for all of the critical prophets through the ages, and the forerunners of doom, has the creativity of man destroyed itself in those terms.

[...] You cannot say, either, that Nature — with a capital N — will destroy man if he offends her, or that Nature — with a capital N — has little use for its own species, but only wants to promote Life — with a capital L — for Nature is within each member of each species; and without each member of each species, Nature — with a capital or a small N — would be nonexistent.

[...] You have been taught to concentrate upon criticisms and faults in your society; and in your times it seems that everything will work out wrong — that left alone the world will run down, the universe will die, man will destroy himself; and these beliefs so infiltrate your behavior that they organize much of your experience and rob you of the benefits nature itself everywhere provides in direct primary experience.

(Just before the session, we saw a newscast of a congressional committee in Washington, with some well-known scientists testifying as to the probable aftereffects of nuclear war—how the instigator would also eventually destroy itself even if the attacked never fired a retaliatory strike at all. [...]

(Pause.) Your world is not going to destroy itself. [...]

(This afternoon Jane told me that she’d been picking up from Seth about the poor Italian villages that had been destroyed in the great earthquake of November 23. [...]

[...] There were many such villages in the mountains in the overall times of Nebene and your Roman soldier, and they were much in character like the villages recently destroyed in the earthquake. [...]

[...] In the old days they paid what tribute they had to to the government, but otherwise kept to their own ways, and the same applies to the villages that were destroyed. [...]

[...] Ruburt has ridiculed the conventional idea of a god who says “Do what I want you to do or I will destroy you,” and yet you say to life “Give me what I want or I threaten to destroy myself.”

You set yourself against all of this, against the gist of life and joy and vitality, and turn your back upon it with the paltry excuse: “If one person does not love me in a male-female relationship in this life, then I threaten to destroy myself, and shatter the form that holds the spirit, and shatter the form like a glass thrown upon the floor, like a child in a tantrum.” [...]

[...] When you understand my idea of life, then you do not destroy yourself in any form. [...]

(In our reality, the first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy [matter] can be changed from one form to another but that it can’t be created or destroyed. [...] In mathematical terms Einstein revealed that mass and energy are equivalent to each other — when one is “destroyed” the other is “created.”

[...] All I remember is that matter can’t be created or destroyed. [...]

[...] A cell that becomes omnivorous can destroy the life of the body.

[...] When your species sees that it is destroying other species and disrupting the natural balance, then it is consciously aware of its violation. [...]

[...] So even when you think you destroy, you destroy nothing. [...]

It carries also, however, the imprint of your fears, for the tales say that Atlantis was destroyed. [...]

[...] And if a world escapes you — if you cannot follow it and think it has been destroyed — then the same thing applies to the world as to the thought. [...]

[...] You are not allowed to destroy. [...] If you kill, and believe that you kill, you will bear those consequences at this level of your development, but to think that you can destroy a consciousness would make the gods laugh. You cannot destroy one flower seed, much less a man. [...]

[...] Now as I write some old dumb stuff comes emotionally to mind—my mother saying that I’d destroy those I loved or some such nonsense.... [...]

[...] Politically, many today believe that Russia is “the enemy,” and that therefore any means may be taken to destroy that country. Some people within the United States believe fervently that “the establishment” is rotten to the core, and that any means is justified to destroy it. [...]

[...] If you destroy the photograph itself, you can in no way destroy the reality that was behind it. [...]

The first object must be seen as completely destroyed, and the area cleared before the new object is imagined in its place. The first object should be deliberately destroyed. [...]

Not only this, but even if the race as you know it distorts itself beyond belief, or even destroys itself, the many will not forget. [...]

[...] Now alone they would not be permitted to destroy an entire reality. [...]

(Long pause at 11:07.) Heresy was considered female and subversive because it could threaten to destroy the frameworks set about the acceptable expression of religious fervor. [...]

[...] In so specifically identifying with your sex, therefore, you also inhibit memories that might limit or destroy that identification.