“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] Seth’s theory of simultaneous time, which can encompass the notion of future probabilities projected backward into an apparent past, for instance, leaves great leeway for the interpretation of events or questions, however, and makes the idea of contradiction posed by an Atlantis in the past and one in the future too simple as an explanation. [...]

Jane and I regard Seth’s latest delivery on Atlantis as still being only a partial explanation of the whole question of myth and fantasy versus “physical fact,” no matter what time schemes may be involved. [...]

[...] A very simplified explanation is that in a process repeated over and over, a variety of defender cells called phagocytic monocytes turn into macrophages, or scavenger cells that, in turn, release enzymes which consume healthy joint tissue. [...]

[...] Some may contend that they’re not even theories, but only hypotheses—tentatively inferred explanations requiring much further experimentation and examination. [...]

[...] She wrote recently: “We regard Seth’s material on counterparts and families of consciousness as excellent explanations — as thematic frameworks that help us perceive and organize facets of our greater reality that are ignored by conventional academic disciplines. Seth’s explanations stand for aspects of reality that usually escape us.

[...] If you want the entire explanation now you can have it. [...]

[...] There is however no one explanation that will serve, for there are many kinds of apparitions. [...]

[...] Nothing is that simple, but the explanation does serve to clarify contradictory issues. [...]

(After an explanation to Florence of the previous classes she had missed.)

Now: In explanation, I do not know exactly how to word this, but in a manner of speaking I take tours — through psychological realities, however, or through psychic lands rather than physical ones. [...]

What you experienced is difficult to explain until we have a thorough discussion of the inner senses, however I will give you a somewhat superficial explanation for now. [...]

[...] You were attempting the impossible, and I will go into this also more thoroughly at a later time when you can understand the explanation a little better.

[...] We will not go into this now since truly difficult explanations enter in as to how and why, and so forth. [...]

[...] However, you would find some explanation, rather than the right one. [...]

You have read of so-called mediums—and I detest the term—speaking gibberish, the explanation being given that the so-called spirit could not come through. [...]

We will now go into one of our basic laws of the universe, and of the spacious present, which would seem to need little explanation: that of creation.

I could therefore with some justification let you continue to believe in beginnings and endings, and leave the more complicated explanations out, but this is not my way. [...]

[...] Beside the interpretation of dreams specifically, in which I realize you are most interested, beside the explanation of dreams as they apply to your manipulation in the world of matter, we will discuss dream symbols as they apply not to the world of matter but to the dream universe itself.

[...] The “figure of lights” describes an apparition Jane recently experienced, at night, and we are interested in getting Seth’s explanation of it.)

[...] Perhaps the following explanation will express more clearly what I mean.

(The session on Wednesday was held as usual, and of course we asked Seth for an explanation of Monday’s events.)

[...] Again, we run into difficulties in explanation simply because there are few verbal equivalents for what I am trying to say.

[...] (Pause.) From the beginning Ruburt has questioned whether or not our material gave a true explanation of reality—or at least presented one that was as approximately true as possible. [...]

That analogy will help you at least intuitively understand the existence of situations such as suffering, and poverty, that otherwise seem to have no adequate explanations (as Jane and I were discussing today). I hope also to account for behavior on the part of nature that certainly seems to imply the survival of the fittest in a tooth-and-claw fashion, or the punishing acts of a vengeful God on the one hand and the triumph of an evil force on the other.

Many people, not all, do “not see the world as others see it,” and so there are social and medical explanations. [...]

Now: it is sometimes difficult to explain certain issues so that you do not end up with a simple black-or-white explanation. [...]