“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

The Queen of Frogs

The queen of frogs

It makes no difference to the frog, to the nature of the frog, and it changes no smallest cell within him, if you choose to enclose what you call him, as an idea unit called frog, or whether you consider instead the complete picture. [...]

A small frog for example may be more likely seen not as a frog isolated, but as one part of the pond in which he lives; and the pond part of the forest in which it lies; and the forest part of the earth; and the earth itself part of the universe, which is part of another universe.

It may be that the frog could have learned more by exploring his own frogness, and, certainly, I felt rather superior to the frog and the nature of his search — that’s implied in the poem. [...]

Some frogs jeered and scoffed at him.
Others called him great.
He only smiled and went off by himself,
Poor lonely frog, to meditate.

A frog sat still and stared with awe
At a watch that lay in the sand.
“Now,” he thought, “I am quite sure
There is such a thing as Man.”

So the frog spent all his life
Trying to understand.
While he grew old and feeble
The watch ticked on in the sand.

In the skulls of frogs.

The frog, the star, the rock.

But as you cannot find life by dissecting a frog, you cannot find this sort of distance by exploring space. When you dissect the frog you destroy that which you had been seeking. [...]

[...] The great trip, the great fascination, the cosmic energy and power and strength resides within the eyes of a frog, within the body of a suburbanite who mows his lawn. [...]

[...] That interaction includes not only man, of course, but the emotional reality of all earthly consciousnesses as well, from a microbe to a scholar, from a frog to a star. [...]

If you remember that beneath all, each unit of consciousness is aware of the position of each other unit, and that these units form all physical matter, then perhaps you can intuitively follow what I mean, for whatever knowledge man attains, whatever experience any one person accumulates, whatever arts or sciences you produce, all such information is instantly perceived at other levels of activity by each of the other units of consciousness that compose physical reality—whether those units form the shape of a rock, a raindrop, an apple, a cat, a frog or a shoe. [...]

[...] He is also within each spider, shadow, and frog, and this is what man does not like to admit.

[...] The atoms and molecules that compose all objects, whether it be the body of a person, a table, a stone or a frog, know the great passive thrust of creativity that lies beneath their own existence, and upon which their individuality floats, distinct, clear and unassailable.

It is therefore theoretically possible for you to see the world through a frog’s eye, or a bird’s or an ant’s. We are speaking here of physical senses. [...]

[...] And if I do not sound like a nightingale, it may be said that I speak in tones not quite as bad as a grandfather frog.

[...] Physically you are a part of every other person upon the earth, and you have a connection with each leaf and frog and nail.

[...] And why do you believe that the energy of the universe which flows through frog and tree—does not flow also through your own being—or to refuse to use this tremendous energy because you feel you are unworthy. [...]

At cellular levels the world exists with a kind of social interchange, in which the birth and death of cells are known to all others, and in which the death of a frog and a star gain equal weight. [...]

[...] It is one thing, and unfortunate enough, to dissect a frog to see what did make it live. [...]

[...] Though I have Ruburt speak in tones as deep and ungodly as a frog’s, this will mean nothing.

[...] Being the fittest implies those given most to what would appear to be murderous intent — for you must survive at the expense of your fellows, be you leaf, frog, plant, or animal.