“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(Jane reiterated that she hadn’t trusted her female body, and that she thinks she’s now paying for not having kids — after all, she’d been told that’s what women were supposed to do. [...]

[...] I saw briefly various male and female figures, some of them apparently monster types.

[...] I saw a few figures, male and female.

You knew him in a past life in Germany, and you have all been males and females so it is quite easily for you to relate in either direction. [...]

It has to do simply with the fact that you related as a male rather than as a female for some time because of past-life experiences. [...]

[...] Directly behind our friends (pause), there is a female in blue. [...]

[...] If so a female child, but there is no man in that seat. [...]

These attitudes are intensified where the female sex is concerned. [...]

There is also some confusion having to do with your own idea of what male and female is and what is required of each. [...] Spontaneity and freedom also suggest itself to you as male rather than female. [...]

[...] I read her two letters from female scientists in California that, I thought, would cheer her a great deal, since they both stressed the value of her work. [...]

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.” [...]

[...] Practically speaking, you must stop insisting upon male-female personal love as the condition of existence. [...]

[...] Carl Jung (1875–1961), the Swiss psychologist and psychiatrist, postulated that the unconscious of the male contains a female, archetypal (or typical, instinctive) figure called the “anima”; the correlative male form in the unconscious of the female Jung called the “animus.” In Session 119, then, Seth comments on how Jane herself has an animus — the hidden male within — and on how Ruburt, that larger “male” entity of which she is a “self-conscious part,” contains an anima, or hidden female. [...] From this information I infer that the entity or whole self of each of us, regardless of our current, individual sexual orientation, contains its own counterbalancing male or female quality, whichever the case may be. [...]

[...] Why does he speak of Jane as a male — and so as “he” and “him?” In Note 6 for Session 679, in Volume 1, I quoted Seth from the 12th session for January 2, 1964:) Sex, regardless of all your fleshy tales, is a psychic phenomenon, merely certain qualities which you call male and female. [...] When I say as I have that the overall entity [or whole self] is neither male nor female, and yet refer to [some] entities by definite male names such as “Ruburt” and “Joseph,” I merely mean that in the overall essence, the [given] entity identifies itself more with the so-called male characteristics than with the female.

The voice mechanism, unfortunately, is something that we must work with, and to get my own personality across through the female image and vocal chords, certain adjustments must be made. [...]

[...] Since Seth presumably wouldn’t simply relay such messages, would Jane find herself giving voice for a host of others, male and female, young and old, from many time periods and of the most diverse nationalities? [...]

“No one is to think I am a hysterical female.”

[...] You married a poet first and a female secondly. [...]

[...] But Ruburt was the female: you would not bear any child, so the effort had to be strong on his part. [...]

[...] Her own thought, as she spoke, was that a female was involved; but Seth, she said, would not allow her to say a female was involved. [...]

[...] After I had remarked aloud that Ruburt sounded like a half-and-half name, meaning male and female.)

(December 12, Saturday, 2:00 AM: Jane and I had been dancing, and upon retiring I saw many visions of male and female dancers. [...]

[...] I am not in your terms male or female. [...]

In a past existence the male in this room, during in fact two existences, was an extremely intelligent female of high standing. [...] The husband in the immediately last existence was also a male, but in two lives previous to that he was a female. [...]

[...] For example, in one past life you attacked quite forcibly the female physical organs: an ovary with which you had great difficulty.

[...] In the female existence of which I am speaking, it was the aggressiveness which the personality found distasteful; and in this existence we find the dependency, which you see does not fit in with the personality self-image.

[...] A female relative I believe, perhaps an aunt of yours or of your wife’s. A name perhaps like Evelyn, in connection with a trip, and a rather unfortunate circumstance.

[...] Bill’s one; a female relative the other one.”

There is a strong possibility that he would be a female.

[...] At the same time, you recognized that John’s job as a waiter also involved him with nourishment—that is, physically and symbolically—and the dream was simply restating the fact that the intuitive faculties, often considered solely female, actually involved those qualities of creativity and emotion that held family units together. [...]