“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] And no man needs to build up his ego by crushing another. And no man builds up his ego by crushing another, he merely crushes the inner being which is within him. [...]

[...] I try to fight it, but for one person to build up his own ego, he has to push down other people and I say this is wrong but I see it all around me.”)

Now, the strong ego structure has been adopted as a necessary guard and protection to hold the abilities in check until the present personality learned to develop its abilities to a sufficient level. [...] So do not berate that ego.

The personality ego structure had to be strong, for the whole personality is in many respects a transparent one through which we can speak and through which other realities can be seen. [...]

[...] The inner ego of which we have spoken is the director of such unifying activities. It is the ‘I’ of your dreams, having somewhat the same position within the inner self as the ego has to the outer physical body.

Upon proper suggestion, the personality then will work out specific problems in the dream state, but if the solution is not clear to the [conscious] ego, this does not necessarily mean that the solution was not found. There will be cases where it is not only unnecessary but undesirable that the ego be familiar with the solution. [...]

[...] The ego may attempt to escape such experiences, but the basic nature of action itself is the knowing of itself in all aspects. [...]

[...] This attempt forms the ego, which is itself action.

[...] You are listening to what your ego says, and this I speaks through your mouth and then you hear this I’s words. [...]

[...] You have allowed the ego to become a counterfeit self, and you take its word because you will not hear the muffled voice that is within you speak.

The subconscious has its opinions as the ego does.

[...] His ego image, or in this case Jane’s ego image, is that of, among other things, a black-haired young woman, and that of a woman writer who smokes.

The ego, for reasons of its own, does not want to accept an action which has already occurred, and does not want to admit it within the framework of its own reality. The point of resistance becomes woven into the personality framework, the problem being not of the subconscious, but again of the ego’s denial or attempt to deny a portion of its own reality.

[...] It becomes to all intents and purposes a dead end, isolated from the acceptance of the whole ego, and the most advantageous solution here is, of course, that the ego in one manner or another is made to accept this particular portion of its own past.

That which appears empty, such as your space, is empty only for those who will not perceive, who are blind because they fear to perceive that which the ego cannot understand. The ego however is also capable of greater knowledge and potentiality and scope.

[...] The first occasion was completely spontaneous, and his ego was not aroused.

[...] There is no veil through which human perception cannot see, except the veil of ignorance which is pulled down by the materialistic ego.

[...] The ego is part of the personality, and as such it can partake of sturdier, heartier, more vivid realities. [...]

[...] The book was written by other portions of the self than the ego, and it was not written at the ego’s wish alone.

Ruburt’s ego now contains elements that did not at one time belong to it. It contains portions of the self that are—I hesitate, you see, to say superior, for he is not to get conceited—but portions of the self that contain more abilities than those usually held by the ego.

[...] The ego, again, looks into the physical world. The source self, or inner ego, has its prime reality in Framework 2. Between the ego and the inner ego, you have what you think of as the unconscious. [...]

In a fully ego-oriented state of consciousness this is not so, for the ego constantly tries to maintain a rigid electromagnetic balance. [...]

[...] They are actions which are aware of themselves as identities, whether or not such distinctions are made by the ego. [...]

[...] Otherwise he would have merely automatically recorded my warning, and reacted to it smoothly without any realization on the part of the ego.

“You must, first of all, cease identifying yourself completely with your ego, and realize that you can perceive more than your ego perceives. [...]

[...] “But if we ‘momentarily put aside’ the ego,” she said to me, “won’t we be unconscious?”

The fact of this book is proof that the ego does not have the whole kettle of personality to itself, for there is no doubt that it is being produced by some other personality than that of the writer known as Jane Roberts. [...]

[...] Nor am I a secondary personality, cleverly trying to undermine a precarious ego. [...]

[...] The ego, of course, cannot be annihilated in physical life. [...]

[...] If you are told that the ego must die then you will kill it. [...]

The new ego is quite aware of the conditions of its birth. [...]

Now: It is only because you believe that the ego is such a stepchild of the self that you go to such great lengths to bring out inner knowledge.

It is the ego, practically speaking, who attempts to do the distinguishing here; but the inner core of the self, the inner ego of which we have spoken, manages the basic chore. The setting up of the ego represented at once the necessity of boundaries, represented a cutting apart from, a divorcing, and a rigid limiting function. [...]

These dreams go unrecognized by the conscious ego; but they do not go unrecorded by the inner self, and they therefore exist, and they form electromagnetic channels of their own to which—make that by which—the physical body itself is affected. The physical organism is constantly changed by all stimuli, whether or not the ego is aware of the stimuli. [...]

But the ego also grows and learns and evolves, and it can assimilate more and more, and accept more, as a portion of its own identity. [...]

It is deeper than an ego structure. The ego structure is formed from both, with a surface veneer of superficial characteristics.

(“Could you think of the conscientious self as a more basic ego structure than the spontaneous self?”)

Rising ego consciousness then would have its religious reasons for domination and control. [...] Growing ego consciousness could not run rampant over nature. [...]

[...] The ancient mother-goddess concept became “unconscious”; the male, purposely forgetting the great natural aggressive thrust of birth, took physical aggression and force as his prerogative — for this came to represent the quality of ego consciousness in its need to physically manipulate its environment.

While it (ego consciousness) recognized its deep oneness with the earth and all creatures, it could not at the same time develop those abilities of specialization and its own particular unique focus. [...]

Physical time, or that is clock time, was invented by man’s ego to protect the ego itself, because of the mistaken conception of dual existence—that is, because man felt that a predictable conscious self did the thinking and the moving, and an unpredictable almost automatic self did the breathing and dreaming. [...]

[...] The inner senses are not accustomed to operating so freely and this upsets that all-present ego, and would seem sometimes to drive it to distraction.

[...] The clock time idea was invented by the conscious ego of man for many various reasons, with fear in the foreground.

In prehistoric times mankind evolved the ego and self-consciousness to help him deal with the camouflage patterns that he had created. [...]

“The growth of ego consciousness by itself set up both challenges and limitations. This automatically meant that emerging man, in that framework, must let go of a certain kind of animal comprehension that was extremely valuable overall, but could inhibit ego growth … For many centuries there was no clear-cut differentiation between various species of man and animal … There were also, of course, parallel developments in the emergence of physical man. [...]

[...] You insist upon equating identity with the ego so if the ego does not know, you say he did not know. The ego is merely the tiny pinhead that sticks up and pierces physical reality. [...]

[...] What recourse would that individual have were he consciously, at the ego level, to say, I just don’t want any of this, I would much preferred to have been born aristocratic?”)

[...] The ego may attempt to ignore or escape from such experiences, but the basic nature of action itself is the knowing of itself in all aspects; and in a basic manner, in a very basic and deep manner, action does not differentiate between pleasant, painful or enjoyable actions.

[...] All this is basic knowledge, if you would understand why the personality accepts even an impeding action, or pain or illness, as a part of itself, despite the ego’s resistance to pain.

[...] Once the personality can understand that an illness has been accepted as a portion of the self, then even the ego will be an aid.

This attempt forms the ego, and is itself action. [...]