“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] Then I came to think that Seth actually meant that man has consciously separated himself from his dream body to a greater degree than other creatures have—that even though those other entities became “physically effective” before man did, they still retain a greater awareness of their dream bodies than man does. [...]

[...] “I don’t want to give him a break yet,” he added — the “him” stemming from Jane’s male entity name, Ruburt. [...]

[...] All of these units of consciousness, again, operate as entities (or particles, or as waves or forces). [...]

[...] All That Is disperses itself, therefore, so that it is on the one hand “a massive” subjective entity, a psychological structure—and on the other hand, it also disperses itself into the phenomenal world. [...]

[...] In greater terms, the psyche or soul nowhere exists as a finished product or entity. [...]

On your part the king is an unknown entity, but he will make a move. [...]

[...] But each of you creates a dream world of validity, actuality, durability and self-determination, in the same way that the entity projects the reality of its various personalities. As there is usually no contact between the entity and the ordinary conscious ego, there is usually no contact on a conscious level between the self who dreams and the dream world which has its own independent existence.

[...] If they do, I remarked to Jane as I typed this session the next day, then Seth must have a great amount of extremely interesting information on those concepts in relation to animals, say, or birds, insects, and marine life — not to mention bacteria and viruses; perhaps, also, submicroscopic entities down to the molecular and atomic levels, or even “below,” are involved. [...]

4. See Seth’s very acute discussions of the soul (or entity) in sessions 526–28 for Chapter 6 of Seth Speaks. He came through with many excellent points. [...]

[...] You cannot expect Prentice to understand the nature of your own idealism, or Ruburt’s, in such a way that Prentice as an entity can apply that idealism to its packaging. [...]

[...] My greetings to our friend, Philip (Seth’s entity name for John).

[...] Many of the suggested small exercises given earlier in the book will also help you become acquainted with your own reality, will give you direct experience with the nature of your own soul or entity, and will put you in contact with those portions of your being from which your own vitality springs. [...]

Now initially Ruburt and Joseph and I were a part of the same entity, or overall identity, and so symbolically speaking, there are psychic currents that unite us. [...]

[...] So you can say that certain portions of it deal with physical reality, physical manipulation, and plans; some with deeper levels of creativity and achievement that insure physical survival; some with communication, with even more extensive elements of the personality now generally unknown; some with the continuing experience and existence of what you may call the soul or overall individual entity, the true multidimensional self.

(During break I wondered aloud if Seth’s entity, the larger Seth personality, was listening in on Seth’s data, to pick it up effortlessly as it was being given.

(It will be remembered that Seth has given Philip as the name of John’s entity.)

[...] Ruburt and I were once intimately connected, being offshoots so to speak of the same entity. [...]

[...] They are far closer in your terms because of their natural affinity than they are, for example, sometimes even to other portions of their own entity, as you might be closer to a strong friend than you are to certain members of your own family, though they may be of your own blood. [...]

(“Was this material from specific entities, or personalities, in those terms?” Rob added.)

In more specific terms, I’m organizing this rather short exploration of Jane’s death around these items; a loose chronology surrounding her writing of Seth, Dreams … in 1966-67, and our unsuccessful attempts to sell the book; my acceptance of the survival of the personality after physical death; a waking experience involving my sensing Jane very soon after she had died; a metaphor I created for her death; a dream in which I not only contacted her but gave myself relevant information; another metaphor for Jane’s death; my speculations about communication among entities, whether they’re physical or nonphysical; a letter that could be from the discarnate Jane — one that was sent to me by its recipient, a caring correspondent whom I’ll call Valerie Wood; a note I wrote to Sue Watkins about the death of her mother; some quotations from a published letter of mine; Jane’s notes concerning the relationship we had; and, finally, the poem in which she refers to her nonphysical journeys to come.

[...] I do think that communication among entities, whether they’re physical or nonphysical, is always going on, and from every conceivable angle and in every way. [...]

To me, even thinking about an entity who has died is a form of communication with the essence of that departed one, whatever its nature, shape, and complexity “was.” [...]

The entity name here, Joseph, is an odd one: M-I-N-K-E (spelled out.).

Now if you follow my advice, when you have guests or when you are at work, whenever you see people, you will then try to get an inner impression of the selves that they have been, or of the entity of which they are part.

[...] Once you think of a “tree” (in quotes) as a tree, it takes great effort before you can see it freshly ever again, as a living individual entity. [...]