“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] Because so many individuals have been taught that power or energy is wrong, destructive, or sinful, and therefore to be punished.

[...] If you had helped tonight, you would not have felt the need to turn your emotions inward against yourself in a self-destructive manner.

[...] It will involve perhaps more than anything else the task of slowly changing the focus of his attention and energies, of turning energies that are being used in a self-destructive manner into constructive channels.

The personality in the past, in past existences that is, had a history of hitting out at the organs of the various physical bodies that were its home, as other personalities sometimes have histories that include turning destructiveness outward against others. [...]

Storms, for example, are highly creative natural events, though they can also cause destruction. Early man could see only the destruction. [...]

It does not fear destruction however, as the ego does. [...] It sees or feels itself as a part of continuing action, and because of this inner atomic knowledge it does not fear destruction, basically, knowing that it will be changed into other kinds of action.

[...] All That Is is the creator of individuality, not the means of its destruction.

[...] “That sort of thing simply must go—we can’t afford to have such thoughts any more, they’re too destructive. [...]

An illness, as an impeding action for example, may nevertheless be a constructive action at any given time, in that it may prevent action within the personality from following more destructive actions. When this destructive possibility has passed however, an illness that is still maintained would therefore become a definite impeding action; for any seemingly impeding action cannot be judged alone, but in the context of other action elements of which any given personality is involved.

“Without this acquiescence to even painful stimuli, the structure would never maintain itself, for the atoms and molecules within it constantly accept such stimuli, and joyfully suffer even their own destruction. Being aware of their identity within all action, and not having the complicated ‘I’ structure, there is no reason for them to fear destruction. [...]

[...] She projected her ideas of reality outward, and they literally led her to destruction.

Repression has been one of my own habits, particularly after I learned how destructive negative thoughts can be. [...]

[...] It is its opposite — the desire for destruction.

[...] It does not lead to destruction, violence or annihilation.

He still believed in the fantastic ability of destruction, and he tried to cover it up. [...]

He did indeed fear destruction so that he saw it everywhere, and therefore in himself. [...]

[...] However your spontaneous thoughts are not nearly as destructive as he imagines, and in overinhibiting them, he also inhibits purely spontaneous, joyful thoughts. [...]

[...] He takes it for granted that natural thought, left alone, will be destructive and hurt others.

[...] It is bad enough to anticipate that most unfortunate situations will worsen rather than improve, but it is foolhardy indeed to believe that mankind is bound to destroy itself, or that nuclear destruction is nearly inevitable.

That sort of exposure, in your terms, has not happened before, and of itself it forces both mind and heart to question some dictates that have been taken for granted in the past—for in the past almost any kind of destruction or war or violence was justified if it was done in God’s name, or if the soldiers were marching “on the side of right.”

[...] They are extremely destructive errors, and have many causes. [...] And the greater the number of such destructive physical constructions, the greater his expectation of further fear.

[...] When the overall consciousness, for example, makes the decision to bring about the destruction or near destruction of a portion of the body, permission is asked for, and received or not received. [...]

[...] He convinced that portion that the old beliefs about good and evil, self-destruction, and the existence of the Catholic devil, were not valid. [...]

[...] I had many questions, ranging from the consciousnesses of the ants involved, and their right to life, as opposed to the “destructive” view taken of them by farmers, scientists, and so forth in the conventional sense. [...]

[...] [In them, incidentally, I mentioned the destruction of Elmira’s Walnut Street Bridge; the old steel span had crossed the Chemung River half a block from our apartment house. [...]

[...] This is another story fully as destructive as that of original sin, simply put in different terms. [...]